MANSTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2000, 2 October 1907, Page 1

MANSTERIAL.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1. (licioro Mr. W. A. Burton, S.M.) Alleged Desertion.—ln tile case Hannah O’Sullivan (Mr. Finn) v. I’atriek O’Sullivan (Mr. Stock), alleged desertion, an adjournment was granted until the 18th inst. Urging a Dog to Fight.—Tara in was charged with urging a dog to worry another dog on the main road at Whatatutu. Accused pleaded not guilty.—Constable Doyle deposed that lie rode to Whatatutu on the 17th September, and saw the accused urging one dog against another. lie remonstrated with him, and told him to desist, but accused continued to hiss and clap his hands. Tlio accused was convicted and fined £1 costs £1 2s, in default 4 day’s imprisonment. —Togo Wlietu was charged with a similar offence, and was convicted and fined £l, costs £1 2s, in default 4 days’ imprisonment. Obscene Language.—Kepa Mali was charged with' using obscene language in a public place, to wit, Whatatutu, oil the 17tli September. Accused pleaded guilty, stating that lie was under tlio inihicnce of liquor at the time-. He was convicted and lined £3, costs £3 9s, in default 14 days’ imprisonment. Wilful Destruction of Property.— Kepa Mati was further charged with damaging a pane of glass valued at ■EI 13s 6d, the property of Enoch Richards at Whatatutu. Accused

was convicted and lined £l, value of pane of glass £1 13s 6d, costs £3 Is, in default 7 days’ imprisonment, the sentence to commence at and from the expiration of the former one.

Sale of Liquor Without License. —

The S.M. delivered the following judgment in the case Police v. Townley and Lowndes :—“I have carefully, considered the evidence and the authorities quoted by counsel for the defendants, and have come to the conclusion that defendants are guilty of the offence charged, viz. selling liquor without being duly licensed to do so. The facts are shortly as follows: — A social was on tho date in question being held for the benefit of the local hospital, and amongst other things a refreshment stall was provided, which was under tlie control and management of defendants. During tho evening Sergeant Williams was invited by Mr. Limn to have some refreshments, and they both proceeded to the counter of the re-, freshmen t stall together, and the Sergeant called for a glass of whisky, ami Mr Lunn for a glass of beer, which, was supplied them by one of the defendants, after which Mr. Lunn placed a shilling on the counter. Some little time later Sergeant, Williams again went to tho stall, with Mr. Bell, defendants still being behind the counter, and similar drinks wore called for and supplied as on the first occasion, and the Sergeant threw a shilling on the couuter in payment for them. I am satisfied that when tlie liquor was sujijilied the defendants expected payment for them and were paid for, beyond all doubt. It may be that had tlio drinks not been paid for. no demand would have been made for payment by defendants, hut the fact remains that payment was made and accepted by defendants, and by so doing tlie defendants have committed a breach of the Act. No doubt the sale was for a good object, but still that does not justify an infringement of the . law. In reference to

the point taken by counsel for the defence, as to tlie failure on the part of the "prosecution to prove that defendants at the time of the alleged offence were not licensed to sell liquor, it is not incumbent ou_ the prosecution to do so, as section .172 of “The .Licensing Act 18811’ provides

hat in all proceedings against any icrsoii for selling or allowing to be old any liquor without a license, uch a person shall he- deemed to ic unlicensed-, unless lie shall at the tearing of the case produce his lic-

ense. Taking all (lie circumstances into consideration, it is not a case which calls for more than a nominal penalty. No doubt the case is brought more as a warning for the future than punishment of defendants. lam satisfied that they committed the offence thoughtlessly, and without intention of breaking the law, and tlie fact of a conviction, being recorded against-: them.,will not in the slightest degree act as a stain on tlio character of defendants, who were giving gratuitous services for the benefit of a charitable institution. Defendants will each ho fined, the sum of one

shilling without costs.” Alleged Theft.—Sydney Pakomana, who was convicted of theft oil. Tuesday, was granted probation for six months on the usual terms. Breach of maintenance order.— Edith Cai'don sued Thomas Kerr for £lO 17s (3d, being arrears of a maintenance order. —Mr.- Stock, who appeared for plaintiff, stated that a cheque , had. boon received for the amount but- had not yet been paid, and he asked for‘ait adjournment until Thursday, which was granted.