THE COURTS-TO-DAY

Evening Star, Issue 16663, 20 February 1918, Page 6

THE COURTS-TO-DAY

CITY POLICE COURT. (Before H. A. Young, Esq., S.M.) Drunkenness. —Ernest Henry Reeves,, a returned soldier, was committed to RotoRoa for 12 months.. . Prohibited.—David Johnston Gunning, a prohibited person, charged with being found on licensed premises, was fined 40s or seven days. Remanded.—Daniel Livingstone was charged with being a rogue and vagabond in that he habitually consorted with reputed thieves, and had been previously convicted as an idle and disorderly person. —Mr Irwin appeared for accused, who was remanded for a week, bail being allowed, himself in £IOO and two sureties of £SO each. Sunday Trading.—George Choqueo was charged with keeping his shop open on Sunday for the purpose of trading.—Sergeant 'Thomson said he visited the defendant's shop on the evening of the 10th inst., and Raw him serving soft drinks and ices.—His Worship fined the defendant the maximum penalty, 20s and costs (7b).— — Edward Searje was charged with keeping the Bodega American Bar open on Sunday, the 10th inst., for the purpose of trading.—Mr Hay appeared for the defendant, and said that in view of His Worship's previous decision, he pleaded guilty, and had nothing to say.—Sub-inspector Mathieson said that the defendant was previously before the Court on three similar informations, and convicted on all of them. There was one Sunday since then when he made an effort to comply with what he considered the law—that was, that he supplied something in the nature of a light meal. However, for some reason or other, he wrote to the police on the 9th inst. stating that on the following day he would trade at the Bodega in all articles as usually sold during the week. This included fountain drinks, ice cream, fruit salads, etc. In consequence of this letter the police visited his place on the Sunday, and found him trading just as on ordinary weekdays. He was evidently setting the law at defiance. —Fined 20s and costs (7s). Annie O'Brien, Emma Robertson, Elsie Eva Tikay, and Margaret Mahoney were charged with assisting Searle in the commission of the above offence. Mr Hay defended. SergeantThomson said that at 8.15 p.m. on the 10th inst. he visited the American Bar, and saw the four defendants serving soft drinks and ices. They were quite frank, and said that they were serving under instructions. They continued serving.—Evidence was also given by Constables Fallon and M'Culloch.—Mr Hay said that the charge, as laid, did not disclose an offence. The whole offence must be set out in the charge. In other words, it should be for the purpose' of trading which was not a work of necessity. Apart from that, if the offence was analysed, it would be found that Searle kept open a shop in view of a public street. Then there was the mental element—with the intention of tradins. The body of the offence was keeping the shop open in view of a public street. The mental element was for the purpose of trading. The young women were certainly in the shop on the day in question, and assisted in the trading; but that was not the offence. The defendants did"' not assist in the physical act of keeping the shop open in any sense or form for the purpose of trading. To allege that they assisted in keeping the shop open was too extravagant altogether. The girls were charged with assisting in keeping the shop open so that the public could enter. They did nothing of the sort.—The Sub-inspector said that the information could be amended, if necessary.—His Worship: Why not charge the girls with working at their calling on Sunday in view of - public place?— The Sub-inspector : We can charge them under that section.—Mr Hay objected to any amendment, and asked for a dismissal. The defendants were very carefully excluded from the view of a public place. He could not admit that, they followed their calling jii view of a public place. He had not discussed this matter with the defendants, therefore he could not admit that on the merits thev should be convicted of following their call ing in view of a public place.—His Worship said he would give Mi' Hay an opportunity of calling evidence and arguing "the amended charge.—Mr Hay said it was a new charge, and contended that the present one should be dismissed. It was not properly laid.—The matter was then adjourned for a week, when, it is understood, another batch of \milar cases will come on for hearing.