MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Grey River Argus, 15 January 1929, Page 6

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

GREYMOUTH SITTING. The Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth resumed its sittings yesterday,, after being suspended for a month due t 0 the holiday season. Mr W. Meldrum, S.M., presided, and a lengthy list of cases were brought before him. The big majority of the cases were the result of breaches of the Licensing Act. Senior Sergeant C. E. Roach conducted the proceedings on behalf of the police. On the application of his wife, a prohibition order wag made against a defendant, who did not appear. A first offender found on the licensed premises of the Suburban Hotel on November 4‘h was ordered to pay 10s costs, and for giving a false name to the police, an additional fine of 10s was also imposed. Two first offenders caught in the Club Hotel, Greymouth, after hours, on 24th November, were each ordered to pay costs. Caught in the Commercial Hotel, Greymouth, dn November 24th. two first offenders were ordered to pay costs 12s and 10s respectively. Two first offenders caught in the Dunollie Hotel, on 2nd December, and two first offenders found in the Blackball Hotel on November 25th, were ordered t 0 pay costs 10s each. Four first offenders caught in the Union Hotel. Greymouth, on December Ist were ordered to pay costs 10s each. Frederick Mcllroy and Horace Lonsdale, seamen, also found on the premises. forwarded explanations by letter, and as a result the charges against them were dismissed.

Charles Birss pleaded not guilty and stated that he went to the Union Hotel about 10 p.m. on December Ist to book a room for the night, as his wife was away in Hokitika. Robert Elliott, who als 0 pleaded not guilty, stated that ho went to the hotel about 10 p.m.. aud booked a room, paying two shillings each for bed and breakfast. He was working at Camerons, and staying at Paroa. lie cycled back to Paroa biter, and did not stay at the Union Hotel. The S.M. stated that if defendant had stayed at the Union Hotel, he would have been inclined to accept his explanation. Under the circumstances, he could not do so. Elliott was ordered to pay costs on the charge of being on the premises after hours. Elliott was also fined 10s, with 10s costs, for giving a false name to the police, which he admitted. The explanation of Birss was accepted, and the charge against him was dismissed.

FAREWELL AT BLACKBALL. A social and dance held at Blackball on the night of 23rd November, for th e purpose of giving a farewell to the recently unemployed miners, led to a number of young men who had attended being charged with being unlawfully on th 0 premises of the Club llo‘el on the morning of November 24th.

Four of the defendants who did not appear were ordered to pay costs amounting t 0 10s each. Thomas Ivey, Silas Lewis and Robert C. McDonald appeared, and each entered a plea of not guilty. Constable Conway, in evidence, said that on the morning in question he was attracted to the hotel by men’s voices in the back room. On going round the back, he met five men, who ran away on his arrival. He recognised McDonald and Lewis. As he was approaching the door he heard it close, and then met Ivey about two paces from it. H e taxed him with being on the premises, but he denied it, saying that he had just come from the hall. He later met Lewis and McDonald, when each denied being on the premises. When he served the summons on McDonald, however, the latter admitted having been in the hotel. Thomas Ivey, giving evidence, said that he went to the premises for the purpose of using the convenience. He denied being in the hotel itself. Silas Lewis stated that on the night of November 24th he was at Slatey Creek, but on the night of the ball he was at Blackball, and went to the function, but was never in the hotel on the morning of November 24th. Robert C. McDonald stated that he was never in the Club Hotel at the tim<» in question. He left the ball at 11.30 p.m. The constable had first accused him of throwing stones, but evidently found out his mistake, and let that matter drop. He had not had a drink since three days before the end o f October, until last New Year’s Day. He had not had an argument with a man named Clarke that night. L had not met Clarke. Replying to the S.M.. witness stated that the former hotel on the site had been burned down, and the temporary hut was standing on the back of the section. There were no fences around th 0 premises.

The Magistral accepted the explanation given by Ivey. There was some doubt connected with McDonald’s case, but he was entitled to the benefit, and he would dismiss that charge also. In the case of Lewis, he considered there was not the same doubt, as he admitted being near the hotel,, and he would be convicted and ordered to pay 10s costs.

William Thomas Blackmun, licensee of the Club Hotel at Blackball, was then charged with selling liquor, exposing liquor for sale, and keeping his premises open for the sale of liquor after hours on the morning of 24th November. Mr W. P. McCarthy acted fo r the defendant. Constable Conway stated that the circumstances leading up to his inves tigation of the hotel wer e the same as outlined in the previous case. On going to the back, he noticed five men running away, and then, hearing loud voices in the back room, he gained admission. and found a number of men in the room, standing with glasses of beer in their hands. A statement handed in, and made by the licensee, was to the effect that a farewell ball to the unemployed was held that night, and the.men came. Io the fiotel and asked him for a drink before they left Blackball. He

“shouted” the men, and received no payment. He did not invite the men to come to the premises. Mr McCarthy explained that a social had been arranged to farewell the unemployed at Blackball, who were leaving the next morning, to go to relief work obtained in the district for them The men had called upon Blackmun. to say good-bye. and he had then treated them to a “shout.” Blackmun’s statement to the police was correct.

Defendant stated that the men had arrived only a minute before th e constable, and had not then finished th§ drink he had “shouted” them. Most of them ran out when the constable came in, and in the exit some of the glasses had been upset,, causing the beer to run over the tables and floor That gave the impression to the constable that several drinks had been handed round. Had the men not run away, the position might have been simply explained to the constable. Robert E. Houston corroborated the evidence of th e licensee. The S.M. said the evidence against the licensee did not establish the sale, or exposure of liquor, while the charge of keeping the premises open was also not proved. There was a certain ele ment of suspicion, but 110 direct evidence. Under the circumstances, the charges were dismissed. Robert E. Houston and Bernard Jos eph O’Connor were held to be unlawfully on the premises, and being second offenders, were each convicted and fined £l, with 10s costs. AFTER HOURS TRADING.

Percy James Patterson, licensee of the Union Hotel. Greymouth, was charged with having on December Ist, opened his premises for the sale of! liquor, sold liquor, and exposed liquor' for sale during prohibited hours. Ida Catherine Patterson, wife of the licensee, was charged with supplying liquor. Mr J. W. Hannan appeared for defendants.

Sergeant Smythe stated that at about 11.40 p.m. on December Ist. accompanied by Constable Robinson, he visited the Union Hotel. The front and side doors were locked, but the back door was open. On entering, he found a numbe r of men in the back parlour, and an argument was being carried on between the licensee and a man named Johnston. Patterson made the remark to Johnston: “Remember you are not a Jack Dempsey.” The argument continued until their at’ention was drawn to th© presence of the police. On a table were four empty glasses, which upon examina tion showed signs of having recently contained liquor. A long glass on the shelf also gave signs of having recently contained beer. There was a small miniature bar in the room, and tanding at the counter were three men. On the counter were two glasses, one of which had a short time before contained beer and the other shandy. There were all brands of beer, wine and a bottle of whisky behind the bar, and an enamel basin used for washing glasses. In all, there . were fourteen empty glasses in the room after hours. Witness was told not to try and get evens when he went into the witness box by “telling a lot of lies like he always did.” Patterson later said he did not blame the police for •doing their duty; he would not “beat about the bush,” as he had been fairly caught, and would plead guilty. When asked to produce the lodgers’ book Mrs Patterson said there was no occasion to do so.

To Mr Hannan: All the empty glasses showed jsigns :of having recently contained liquor. Patterson said that he had served four drinks himself. Th e counter was quite wet. They were exceptionally well versed at th c hotel, and when asked questions could give very civil answers. Patterson walked out when the police came in. Mrs Patterson was behind thc bar, and stated that she was there for the purpose of getting a bag of cherries. The men present were asked their reasons for being there. Patterson, when seen a few days later said he was glad the police had arrived, as a quarrel was in progress, and they were on the “verge of having a proper dust-up, a regular donnybrook in fact.” There was li*tl e chance of obtaining statements from the men present, a.s the police were greeted with such remarks as: “Wait till Harry Holland gets in: he will kick you all out,” “Haven’t you any more notebooks?” “We could well do without you fellows; all you are good for is to catch people in hotels.” Constable Robinson corroborated the evidence given by Sergeant Smythe.

T o Mr Hannan: Mrs Patterson had stated that she was in the bar for the purpose of getting a bag of fruit, before going to bed. To the S.M.: Mrs Patterson was standing inside, thc small bar. This closed the case for the police. Percy James Patterson stated that when the police entered there were four empty glasses on the table. He had been entertaining friends to a drink, the chief cook and the second cook of the Raima, and his son was there also. They had had two ports, a squash shandy, and a “pony” beer. There were also two permanent boarders present, and two boarders from SoWh Beach. Williams, Johnston and Thomas then came in about a minute and a half before the police. They were not admitted by him, and he did not know who it was that let them in. Johnston apparently held a grudge against him, but for what reason he did not know. He (Johnston) just came in looking for trouble. He never had a drink, neither did his two friends. Johnston started arguing, but witness said even if Johnston did hit him, he (witness) would not hit back. He then told Johnston he was not a Jack Dempsey. Mrs Patterson then walked in to get a bag of fruit and the police followed almost immediately after. Witness did the serving, and told the police that. There were no drinks served other than those to boarders; To the Senior Sergeant: There were not fourteen glasses in the room; there were four on the table and owe or two on the mantelpiece, from which his brother had had a drink. There wer? no “pints” there, as pints were not sold in the hotel. Charles Birss stated that he was

present when the police came in. John ston and two others had arrived shortly before the police, and immediately an argument started between the licensee and Johnston. Johnston and his friends were not served with a drink. Mrs .Patterson did not ser;ve any drinks.

To the Senior Sergeant: Johnston apparently came in looking for a fight. Witness wasn’t very interested, as he considered it a good thing to keep out of.

Senior Sergt Roach: Yet you were interested enough to know that Mrs Patterson did not serve drinks.

Witness replied he was certain Mrs Patterson did not serve drinks; he noticed her eating some cherries. He did not go to the hotel often. The Senior Sergeant stated that he would like to have the opportunity to rebut the evidence that Mrs Patterson did not serve drinks that night. Johnston was in Court, and would say that she did.

The Magistrate said he would grant the request. Albert Patterson, brother of defendant. and Ida Beatrice Patterson, wife of defendant, gave evidence along lines similar to that of the previous witnesses/

'Oscar Johnston, called by the prosecution, stated he was in the hotel with two friends, Williams and “Snowy” Thomas, on the night in question. They arrived there at about 10.30 p.m., and the tall boy (Patterson junr) let them in. As soon as he walked in, Patterson said: “You have only come here for an argument,” and then a row started. “Snowy” had said they had better have a drink, and witness consented and ordered a Speight’s beer. He could not obtain it, as there was not any; so he had a “port-a-gaf,” the other two having respectively a shandy and a squash shandy. Mrs Patterson served the drinks, and Thomas paid for them. They had only one drink when thc police came in. The licensee and witness were then engaged in an argument. They were each on different sides of the table. Patterson said: “Don’t run away with the idea that you are a Jack Dempsey.” The police then came in, and I said: “Thank God, I am only a first offender.”

To Mr Hannan: Witness had experienced trouble previously at the hotel for asking for a 41 second” beer late one night, when Patterson had said. “You are drinking long ones at this hour, aren’t you?” Witness had replied’ he didn’t consider a “second” a long one. The police came five or ten minutes after witness had been here. He was quite certain he was served by Mrs Patterson with a drink. When the police came in, he went out. He did not see the men from the Kanna have a drink. Mr Hannan: You seem very keen to “put one over” Patterson. Witness: It doesn’t look much like it. Mr Hannan: It looks very much like it. In reply to a further question from Mr Hannan, witness said he went there to hav e a drink, at the suggestion of “Snowy” Thomas. He was quite certain the licensee had seen them served. The Magistrate .reviewed th e evidence, and stated that it was clear liquor had been exposed for sale, and a certain amount of drinking had been going on. H e had no doubt in his mind that Patterson was guilty. Regarding Mrs Patterson, it had been stated that she did not supply any liquor, and she also said thc same. The evidence of the police, however was that she was found behind the bar, and was not in the act of going out, and that she had been supplying liquor. He had no doubt in this case also that Mrs Patterson had served drink. The question of penalty would be reserved until the evidence had been heard in thc other cas e in which Patterson was implicated.

Evidence was then taken in the adjourned case of the Police v Percy James Patterson, licensee of the Union Hotel, in which defendant was similarly charged as in thc previously reported case, with the additional charge of permitting violent behaviour. Mr Hannan said the case had been adjourned to enable the evidence to be heard of a seaman, but the desired witness had not returned. He now wished to call the evidence of defendant ’s brother. Albert Patterson, brother of th© defendant, stated he remembered the

seaman who had entered into an agreement with the man Riley, and went on to detail some of the happenings which led up to an alleged fight between Riley and the seaman, as a result of which Riley complained to the police. There had not been a fight, to the best of his knowledge, as the two men had only been arguing, and had gone into the passage, and he did not follow them. He was reading the paper at the time, and did not take much notice of the argument. Riley had been a “wee bit on” at the time. His bro ther was behind the bar. The Magistrate remarked that as there was a big file of evidence, he would have to review it before deciding the case. He would make known his decision this morning at 10.15 a.m. ALLEGED BOOKMAKING. CHARGE AGAINST McCARTHY DISMISSED. Daniel McCarthy was charged that being the occupier of premises in Boundary Street, he did use the same as a common gaming house. Defendant was represented by Mr J. W. Hannan. Senior Sergt Roach stated that at 11.35 a.m., on December 15th, accompanied by Constable Hay. he visited the premises on search warrant in Boundary Street occupied by defendant. The premises comprised an outfitter’s shop in front, and a partition which separated the office from the business portion. In the office was ar observation outlook, enabling anyone from within to see what was going on outside. There was a door on tlm right, which had a Yale lock attached, while on the left-hand side was a big handle, which made it appear as though the door opened from the side on which the hinges were. Inside, to the left, was a slide, like a “bar” slide, which gav e access to the office. The door to the office was right round the back, and was opened by defendant from the inside by a cord. On entering, witness informed defendant that h 0 was in possession of a search warrant, and Constable Hay had a look through the observation window, and then wen* t 0 the telephone to ring Central., but received no reply, as th e telephone was out of order. They then searched the premises. On the table were race varus for the Oamaru races that day, together with starting times, several small pads, and sports guides. There was also found a list of abbreviated names, and amounts on a sheet which defendant said showed monies owing to him by several persons for loans made to them. There was also a small destructor in the office. Witness produced burnt race cards which had been removed from the destructor. A sum of money amounting to £l4 10s in notes, and some loose silver was also taken possession of. When asked if he knew what was wrong with the telephone, defendant replied that he did not know, as it had been operating at 9.30 a.m. that morning. Constable Hay then left for Central to obtain the services of a mechanic, but owing to some mistake being made the mechanic first went to Chunn’s to repair a fault in the telephone there* and it was :iot ; until 12.45 p.m. that he arrived at de- ( fendant’s, when it was found the wires had been cut between the ceiling and the roof. Defendant made no explanation as to how the wires were cut.

Constable Hay corroborated the eviI dence of the Senior Sergeant. He further stated that defendant had been him by repute a< a book maker for the past fi*. u years witness had been in Greymouth. Detective March stated that he had visited the premises of defendant at about 1.30 p.m. on th ' day of the raid, when he spoke to McCarthy, and asked him if he could explain the presence of the acceptance slips, but defendant would giv© no explanation at all. Witness then asked him what the list of abbreviated names and amounts were, and the reply was that it represented money owing to defendant for loans made to several persons. When asked for what purpose the loans were made, and whether he could giv e a single address of one, defendant said he would rather not say. The account was similar to those usually kept by bookmakers. Defendant could not explain why the telephone had been out of order. There was a manhole in the room at the back, which could be reached by a ladder. He knew defendant to be a bookmaker by repute, and had kept him under observation. Wit-

ness had noticed men outside the premises consulting race cards. On one occasion fou r men were noticed by witness on a race day in November, coming from defendant’s office. Mr Hannan: Do you know the names of any of the four men?—No, I cannot say I do. Mr Hannan: You should know most people in the town? —I do not know everybody. Mr Hannan: Was that the only time on which you noticed men coming from the office?—Yes, at that meeting. John Crawford, advertising manager for the Grey River Argus newspaper, produced a jobbing book; in which he stated were notices of acceptances printed for a Mr McCarthy. He could not say that he knew defendant. He would not be prepared to swear that the defendant was the same Mr McCarthy as the person for whom the work was mentioned in the book. To Mr Hannan: I could not ray that defendant is the same Mr McCarthy. The Senior Sergeant intimated that he desired to call evidence to prove that Jthe “D. McCarthy” in the “Argus” books was iu reality defendant.

Mr Hannan submitted that the evidence was not required, as the police had failed in their ease. They had not produced evidence of any person resorting to the place for th c purpose of betting. After further legal argument, the Magistrate ruled that further evidence was not necessary.

His Worship stated that no evidence had been produced of any person going to defendant’s premises for the purpose of making a bet. There was no evidence of “common use,” and further, no evidence of any betting message being received over the telephone. The Senior Sergeant quoted previous decisions which, he contended, had bearing in the present case, and submitted that thc premises were kept open or used for the purpose of receiving bets. Everything pointed to that. Mr Hannan submitted that there must be evidence of persons making bet'ing transactions with defendant. The Senior Sergeant: There is the evidence of thc detective. The S.M.: That is only suspicion. There is n o evidence of people going in to make bets. Reviewing the case, the Magistrate sta’ed there was a certain amount of suspicion attached to defendant, but it required something more than suspicion to convict. There was no evidence of one single person having a bet and no message with regard to betting with defendant. There must be clear evidence to prove that the premises were being used for the purpose of carrying on as a common gaming house. Defendant may have made bets on the street o r anywhere else, but there was no evidence of that. Owing to the want of direct evidence, the case must be dismissed. The money secured by the police was ordered to be returned to defendant.

YOUNG COUPLE AT VARIANCE.

Nellie Kermode, a young woman of smart appearance, made application to the Court for a maintenance order -gainst her husband, John Kermode, a young miner of Blackball. Kennode was represented by Mr J. W, Hannan Giving evidence, the young wife stated that her husband had failed to iprovide her with adequate maintenknee. He had told her that he would ’not support her. They had been married two years and seven months, the marriage having taken place in Bothv,ell. Scotland. There were no children. The parties came to New Zealand together two years ago last NoVcinber, and had been living in May Ecad, Blackball. Complainant had been living with a Mrs Walker, as her husband had been in hospital for eighteen months, having suffered with internal trouble. She did not know the date on which he was discharged. Witness went to Christchurch in April, IP2B, as it was agreed between the parties that she Should obtain employment until he had recovered. She received 30/- per week from the Medical Association while he was in hospital. It did not eost them ap’ thing while he was in hospital, as tpt expense was paid by the mine, obtained work as a receiving 25/- per week and her keep, and aftef her husband had left tie hospital, he staved at the Domin/on Hotel 1 ■ I

in Greymouth. He went back to wor at Blackball in October last, and ha been there ever since. Witness, eamo back to Blackball after hearing h« was working, and asked him to make a home for her. He stated that he could not, as he had too many debts to nav. There were no debts when _ left for Christchurch. Her husband was boarding with a Mrs Buchanan at Blackball. Witness had been e, only a fortnight on this occasion, will give vou a letter from him to read which will give you a clear idea of what he means,” said witness to k His Worship. “It is an answer one of mine asking him to make a home for me.” The letter was perused by His Worship and Mr Hannan. To Mr Hannan: She came over from Christchurch the day before New Year. The position she had left was still open to her, and she expected to go b-. ek to it. Her salary was 25/- per week and hex keep. While her husband was in hospital he had received a cable in July, 1927, from his people, who sent him £3O. and he had given her £25. In June, 1928, he had received another cable, and he gave her £6. If her husband was willing to make a home, she would live with her. She had told him of her willingness to live with him if he made a

To the S.M.: “I had a home ready for him in Blackball. I had rented .1 hense and furnished it, and part of tie furniture is still in Blackball. To Mr Hannan: On the first occasion when her husband had been discharged, he had to return to the hospital after three days owing to a bad ankle. She did not have a home the second time he came out, as she was not aware he had been discharged. She had no idea of his earnings since Jj his discharge, as’ he did not inforffi her. “He must have been fit for work, as he has been working ever since,” added witness. “He brought me out here, and I have no relations at all.” Mr Hannan produced a certificate from the mine showing that Kermode’s earnings since August to December 29 w*erc £57 5/-, and in addition he had received £ll by way of compensation during that period. Mr Hannan said the amount was insufficient to pay Kermode’s board, John Kermode said he started work last August and w-orked off and on until the end of December. He worked all the time he was able. His total income for nearly’ six months was £t>B. The whole of that went to pay' his board. He was at present not more than able to keep himself. To the S.M.: Some days he was not able to work. His Worship reminded Kermode that when he got married he undertook a responsibility to support his wife. He had brought her ont here, away from all her relations, and was expected to look after her. He must understand that it was his duty to support her. Kermode stated he was prepared to ■ support her as long as he was able to work. He was going back to the hospital, however, in a week or two, for ai.otb r operation, which would mean another four or five months before he could work again.

Asked by the Magistrate the real reason for the couple not getting along together, witness said it was because they could not pull together. Further questioned, witness said he was not prepared to make an effort to pull together. He was prepared to do so until his wife put the matter through the Court. That was his reason for not desiring to patch up the difference. Don t you think it is an inadequate one?” asked His Worship. “You brought her out, and it is your duty to keep faith with her, and try to pull together.” “What is it you ask for Mrs Ker mode,” said t the S.M. “Can you carryon until your husband comes out of the hospital? ” Mrs Kermode intimated that she would be quite prepared to do so. “Well, I will adjourn the hearing for six months, on the understanding ■, that Kermode goes to the hospital. j See if you young people cannot agree in the meantime. I hope you can. for it is a pity to see two such young people at loggerheads so earlv,” remarked His Worship.