MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 June 1930, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TO-DAY’S GREYMOUTH CASES. Licensing cases comprised the majority of those on the list dealt with by Mr W. Meldrum, S.M., at the Greymouth Court to-day. SeniorSergeant C. E. Roach represented the police. Seven statutory first offenders, caught on licensed premises after hours, were each convicted and ordered to pay costs; three second offenders were each fined £l, with costs.

A first-offending drunk was fined 5/- and another 5/- for breaking his prohibition order. . Another offender was fined 5/-, with 10/- costs, for breaking his prohibition order. On the application of his father, a prohibition order was issued against a Greymouth resident. “TEA FOR TWO.” . Thomas Cameron, horse-trainer, of Omoto, was charged with being unlawfully on the premises of the Dominion Hotel at 7.45 p.m. on May 10. He was represented by Mi’ W. J. Joyce, who stated that defendant admitted being on the premises, but had a legitimate excuse. Defendant stated that he met a friend, whom he had not seen, for years, and had tea with him at the hotel, as his guest. After tea, they remained in a private parlour, talking. His friend was a boarder at the hotel.

In reply to the Senior-Sergeant, defendant admitted that he had previously been caught in that hotel after hours.

“It is your favourite hotel?” asked the Senior-Sergeant. “Not necessarily,” replied Cameron.

Sergeant J. Smyth described his visit to the hotel, and his conversation with the two friends. In reply to Mr Joyce, he said that they were the only two men found in the parlour, and there was no sign of liquor. Defendant’s friend was a stranger to wit. ness.

The S.M. said that the onus was on defendant to show he had a. reasonable excuse fol' being on the premises. If what he said was true, he was the lawful guest of a bona fide boarder. His explanation would be accepted, and the case dismissed. LICENSEE FINED. John Morressey, the licensee of the Railway Hotel, was charged that, on May 24, he opened his premises for the sale of liquor after hours; also that he sold liquor after hours. Appearing for defendant, Mr M. James entered a plea of guilty to the charge of selling. The other charge was thereupon withdrawn by the police. The Senior-Sergeant said that about 6.40 p.m. the sergeant visited the hotel and found five men drinking at the bar slide. The licensee was in charge, and had no excuse to offer for selling liquor after hours. It was his first offence.

The S.M. imposed a fine of £2, with 10/- costs.

BY-LAW CASES.

For allowing a horse to wander in the Borough of Brunner, Hugh Sweetman was fined 5/-, with 10/- Court costs, 11/10 witness’s expenses, and 10/6 solicitor’s fee. Mr W. J. Joyce appeared for the Brunner Borough Ranger (Mr M. McDonald). Leslie Hunt and Reginald Rutter, charged with riding unlighted cycles after sunset, were each fined 5/-, with 10/- costs.

Charged in the Juvenile Court with riding an unlighted cycle after sunset, a boy was reprimanded and discharged.

MATCH IN MINE,

A Dobson trucker, Albert F. Hart, was charged with having a’match in his possession in the mine on April 30. Mr M. James appeared for the informant, Mr C. Hunter (mine manager). Defendant did not appear, but forwarded a written statement, to the effect it was quite an accident that the match was in his pocket, as it became caught in a ba'g of “lollies” he placed in his pocket previous to descending the mine. He was, he said, innocent of any criminal intention whatsoever.

Thomas Waters, undcrviewer, stated that he searched Hart, and found the match. The S.M.: Is there any suggestion of smoking?—No. It was a pure accident? —Yes.

The minimum fine of £2 was imposed, with 10/- Court costs, and 10/witness’s expenses.

MAINTENANCE.

The Maintenance Officer charged Michael Patrick Trac’ey with failing to obey an order made on July 9, 1928, for the maintenance of his illegitimate child.

The Court records were produced by Robert Duggan, who said that Tracey had been on several occasions prosecuted for disobeying the order, and on May 22, 1929, he was fined £l. Since then two further informations had been issued, in addition to that under which the present proceedings were taken. The arrears of £ll/2/6 had since been paid. Defendant was convicted and fined £2.