MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Grey River Argus, 16 May 1922, Page 7

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

(Before Mr . Meldrum. S.M.) There was a moderate list at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, the only case of much importance being that in which a hotel licensee was charged with a breach of the Licensing Act. WANDERING STOCK. T. G. Kitchingham was charged with allowing stock to wander. The witness for whose appearance the case had been adjourned did not appear. Mr F. A. Kitchingham, who appeared for the defendant stated that the case had been adjourned from last Court day. The defendant considered he was not liable as he was not responsible for the horse being at: large. The Bench considered defendant must be held liable. Ho would be convicted and lined 5/- and costs. Thos Waugh, who did not appear was similarly dealt with. BY-LAWS BREACH. Reuben William Jensen who was charged with failing to have the registered number of his motor car in an upwright position on the front of his car, did not appear. Sergeant Fryer stated that he had noted the car on April 17th. and the front number plate was not affixed in accordance with the by-aws. Defendant was lined 5/- and costs. SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT. W. S. Clark, charged with failing to close his shop in accordance with the Shops and Offices Act on the statutory half holiday, pleaded not guilty. Joseph Lowden. Inspector of Factories appeared for the Labour Department and stated that a breach had been committed. On Saturday April Sth at 6.30 p.m. he visited defendant’s shop at Runanga. Witn-cssed followed another man in. The slock kept in the shop covered a wide range. The ' gentleman who preceded him disclosed his business to defendant. A small boy entered afterwards. Asked if he was in the habit of getting served on Saturday afternoon, the boy said ‘‘no.’’ ’These were the farts, and the defendant, not being exempted, had no right I to keep his shop open. To the Bench: Mr Clark was behind the counter. Asked if these wen* the facts, the defendant said the position had been stated correctly. In the box defendant stated he was a miner. He was secretary of tire [Medical Association ami the Accident I Fund. He returned home on the day in qustion at midday, and had opened j the shop for the purpose of disposing lof some business. Witness saw Mr Gil- . linghani in his shop on school commiti tee business. ’The shop was not open I for the purpose of selling goods. His J nephew had come in and asked for crackers, but bad been refused. i Mr Lowden said the shop was not i closed in accordance ■with the Act. He i took the action he did because of coinplaints recei vod. To the Bench Clark said the shop was the quitest place for him to do his secretarial work. He bad opened Ihe door first to see his ■wife who was coming off a train. The Bench staled the case did not come within the section. The gentleman did not come in to buy anything, ami the door was open for a reasonable purpose. The case was dismissed. William Murphy, also of Runanga. pleaded giulty to a similar charge. Mr J. Lowden stated that lie visited Murphy’s shop owing to complaints. Mr .Murphy knew him and admitted the shop was open for business. 'There was no exemption in the case ol defendant. If was a first offence. The Bench stated the maximum penalty was £lO. Defendant stated he was not the owner of the shop, and he had opened it in the absence of his wife, who was the owner. The defendant was fined £1 ami costs. GUESTS OR CUSTOMERS? Oscar Egden was charged with exposing liquor for sale ami selling liquor on April 7th (Sunday) contrary to the provisions of the Licensing Ad. -Mr Joyce appeared for defendant ami pleaded not guilty. Senr-Sergeant McCarthy slated the information was laid under section 190 of tho Licensing Act. At 1 1.45 a.m. on the 7th inst., a Sunday, a constable visited the Royal Hotel and found two local residents standing in front of a slide at the bar with glasses of liquor in front of them. Under section 200 it was not necessary to prove that any money had passed, or that any liqiioi had been consumed. 'The defendant staled hr had invit-cd the two residents in to treat them. If this could be done without infringing the Act. then hotels might as well remain open altogether. If the presumption of a sale was proved then a conviction must be recorded. Constable Wilson staled he visited the Royal Hotel on the morning of Sunday 7th inst. He heard voices near the slide ami the licensee came in answer. Asked if everything was alright, the licensee said yes. Witness went through to the private bar with Mi Eugen. 'Two local men were standing at the bar slide. The two men. Bowman and Gray,, both had liquor glasses in front of them. They stated they had been standing in front ol the hotel “talking football,’’ when the licensee invited them in to have a drink. Asked if this was correct, Hie licensee

said ‘‘Yes, I Ihought I could do so.’ The bar doors were locked. 'To Air Joyce: 'The outside doors were wide open. lie did not know’ there was a truck outside with some heavy gear on it. Counsel stated that, a licensee entertaining guests was not liable. 'These were th«» circumstances in the present case. Nothing had been done to prevent the Constable from obtaining 'entry into the any part of the house. The summons was served only on >Satmday. ami the witnesses could not be subpoenaed. Oscar Egden, licensee of the Royal Hotel stated '.hat on the Sunday the Constable came in, he was out on the railway line, and was speaking to the. two men who were railwaymen. '.The two men. after conversing with witness were asked in to have a drink. On'* of the men, without witness’s knowledge, bolted the door after him. 'The bottom part of the slide was not locked. 'The men paid for no drinks. His doors were open all day. To the Senr-Sergeant: He thought ho was acting quite innocently. Witness would admit having his bar open after hours the day of the Kumara races but it was impossible to clear the bar because of the number of men in the hotel. He had known Bowman and Gray for many years. Witness had not invited anyone else in that To -Mr Joyce: ’The race train on the occasion he had been warned had pulled up light opposite his hotel, and the race-goers had been wet through and anxious for a drink. The Bench stated there was no question the onus was thrown on defendant to prove the liquor was not sold. It turned on whether the men were private friends or were, only business Acquaintances. In the prescoit case the men were those defendant had met in the wav of business. In the case ol intimate private friends it would be expected that they would be taken into a. private room, probably upstairs. ll<* had never invited the men into such a too m. Air Jovce pointed out that defendant had taken over the hotel only a few months ago. The Bench proceeded the men could not lie held to be bona fide guests of of licensee. Defendant would ho convicted and fin-ed £2 ami costs. 'The second charge would be withdrawn. The two men were convicted ami ordered to pay costs for being on licensed premises during prohibited hours. MAINTENAN- E. John Uren of Otira was ordered to pay 15/- per week for tho maintenance of each of his three children. The upplication. was made by the police.