MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Grey River Argus, 28 March 1922, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

(Before Mr W. Meldrum, S.M.) A sitting of the Magistrate’s Court took place yesterday when the following cases were dealt with:— AFTER HOURS. -Two first offenders, who were charged with being on licensed premises during prohibited hours, were convicted and ordered to pay costs. A second offender, for an offence on March 13, was convicted and fined £1 and costs. ‘‘PENNY-WISE.” Ronald Mclnnis, who did not appear, was charged with travelling in a first-class-carriage on January 30, while holding only a second-class ticket, and refusing to pay the difference in fares. Senior-Sergeant McCarthy stated the defendant joined the train at Wallsend, and got off at Brunnerton. He held a second-class ticket, yet sat down in a first-class carriage. The difference in the fares was only Id, but the ease was brought as a warning to the public. The guards had to protect themselves, as they were required to acquit themselves satisfactorily in the issue of tickets. Roberf* Alt xander Rose, guard on the train, stated he saw Mclnnis get on the train at Wallsend. Witness went through to the first-class carriage where defendant got on, in order to make out a ticket for him. Mclnnis refused to take anything but a second-class ticket, although asked twice to do so. Witness was liable to a penalty from the department if he overlooked such a matter. The man had said to witness when spoken to the second time, “You’re too d officious,’’ and had stated he had gone into the carriage to see a friend. Constable Baird gave similar evidence. The Bench stated the offence had been a deliberate one. For that reason Mclnnis could not be treated as a first offender. He would be fined 10/- and costs, and would have to pay 10/- witness ’s expenses. BREACH OF ORDER. Garrett Cotter, who did not appear, was charged with a breach of his prohibition order on February 2 last. Senior-Sergeant McCarthy asked that defendant be convicted and discharged as he had joined a vessel at Westport and was now out of the Dominion. The Bench discharged defendant accordingly. LICENSING CASES. The charge against Robert Russell, licensee of the Park Hotel, of exposing and keeping liquor for sale during prohibited. hours, was adjourned till next Monday. Cases against three mon who, it is alleged, had been on the premises were also adjourned. Mr W. J. Joyce appeared for the defendants. MAINTENANCE. Proceedings for disobedience of a ’maintenance order were taken in the case Jean Stade v. Christopher Stade. A counter-action was also taken. Mr Joyce appeared for defendant, Christopher Stade. Mr Hessell appeared for complainant and stated the case had a history. The order had been made some years ago. There were arrears of £l7l owing. No payments had been made since September, 1921, and the arrears had never been overtaken during the last five (years. Stade was actually imprisoned on one occasion for two or three days, but he secured his release by the pay'nient of £6 arrears. I Counsel for defendant stated that Stade had made no payments during the last six months, owing to the fact that complainant had refused to accept one payment of £3. Complainant’s counsel stated that she was prepared to forego payment of the 'arrears, if some reasonable arrangement was entered into. Mr Joyce stated the went back to 1907. The couple had separated shortly after marriage. Stade suffered from defective eyesight. He was now employed as a farm labourer at Mawheraiti, and was prepared to pay 10/a week. Defendant, in the box, stated he earned £1 per week. In reply to counsel, he said he did not earn as little as possible so that he could avoid payment of maintenance. Complainant, in the box, stated she was not strong enough to earn any money excepting 15/- per week which she received for acting as foster-mother to a two-year-old baby. She did not believe the statement that Stade was receiving only £1 per week. The Bench stated that an order would be made for 10/- per week. Under the present conditions of employment, Mrs Stade would be at liberty to take proceedings for a variation of the order if she thought such justifiable. Defendant would pay £lO off his arrears. The balance of these would be liquidated upon such payment.