MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Grey River Argus, 10 November 1931, Page 8

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

YESTERDAY’S CASES. The following cases were dealt with by Mr W. Meldrum, S.M., at a sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth yesterday:— Two statutory first offenders found on licensed premises after hours were each convicted and ordered to pay costs 10/-. Charged with drunkenness a first offender was convicted and fined the amount of his bail, 5/-. John Parfitt was convicted and fined 5/- with Court costs 10/-, for riding without a light in Mawhera Quay after sunset on October 2Gth. Brendon Creagh (Mr M. B. James) made application for the variation of a maintenance order of 15/- a week, in respec-t of his illegitimate child. Mr Revell appearing for the maternal grandmother of the child opposed the application. After hearing the evidence of the applicant, the Magistrate declined !to vary the order, but suspended payment of arrears, until three months from date. TRADING AFTER HOURS. William Brown, licensee of the Cob l den Hotel, was charged with opening his premises after hours on October 25 and with selling liquor after hours on the same date. Defendant pleaded, and the charge of opening was withdrawn. Senior Sergeant Roach said the Constable went into the hotel on the night of October 25, at 10.25 p.m., and found three men standing at the bar slide, with drinks in front of them, whilst there was also 2/- on the counter. Defendant was convicted for u similar offence in December, 1929. Mr J. W. Hannan, for defendant, said he had been in the Recreation Hotel up to three months ago, and it was almost two years since he had been before the Court on the previous occasion. Defendant was convicted and fined £5, with court costs 10/-. AIDING AND ABETTING. William Brown, licensee of the Cobden Hotel (Mr J. W. Hannan) was also charged that on October 18th he did aid and abet John Edward Walker and Thomas Cameron in the commission of an offence, that the two men were found upon the premises at a time when the premises were required by law to be closed. Defendant pleaded not guilty. The Senior Sergeant said on Sunday. October IS, Sergt. Murray and Constable Cogswell visited the hotel and found two mon on the premises hiding behind bedroom doors. The licensee admitted the police, the door being locked. Twenty minutes later Constable Kearney visited the premises and found the two men were still there with the licensee, who must have known the men were on the premises. Complaints had been received about the Cobden Hotels trading on Sun-

days. Sergt. Murray stated that the licensee took some time to open the door, and during the interval he hoard sonic people running upstairs. The licensee said there was only his family in the house, but on investigation, witness found the two men hiding behind bedroom doors upstairs. Constable Kearney stated that he visited the hotel at 8.40 p.m. and found the two men still there with the licensee? He had no knowledge of the Sergt. and the Constable having visitbed the hotel earlier. X Mr Hannon contended that defend%t had no case to answer. There had

ifen no proof, but mere suspicion of ijig and abetting. It did not matSpw long the men remained on the pjses after they had been caught. WP }fence was com pl e te when they Und by the Sergt. and ConstacenseeK®^ 010 ’ be contended, the li- ’ offence T 4 11 ot bo ’“Pleated in an ? 1 c&dy committed. see had Sergeant said the licening the me% 01 ' tunit y of either e i eet_ so? but he » allin S the P° lice t 0 d 0 got Constab< ther - Hc could have t ®arney to put them The Magistral. . , . ... said it was a qu^ vin S hl ” decisl ° n > facts placed befoV whether on the fied in holding tl<l was justr did not aid and abeX fcndant dld or fendant apparently 1A t "’° ™ en ’ De ’ were in the house., wV 11C when the police first A 5? licensee then said there W. 6 J e \ the house other than tjirt j l '.” 0 Sergeant searched and WoiiiFZ’ . e mon. It was defendantV dur? C W ,° after his house and he should °° x ercised control of it in a) propet ner. There seemed to beino doutV? permitted the two meii to reiv' on the premises, when he (as lawfX entitled to ask them to leave or efu the police to eject them. He did neither. Defendant would bl convicted and fined £2 with court costs 10/-.