MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Grey River Argus, 13 August 1935, Page 8

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

SITTING AT GREYMOUTH. At the sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Greymoutli yesterday Mr. H. Morgan,. BJU.., deault with the following eases: —Senior-Sergcunt E. Quayie prosecuted. A first offender for drunkenness was convicted and discharged Niteleen statutory first offsaders found 1,11 '-’ c eased premises aft-if hours, were each fined £1 with, costs It's. One of the men was convicted without penalty for a breach o': nis proaimuoa order. John Dirwtil licensee cf the Union Hotel, Grey mouth (Mr J, W. Hannan'pleaded guilty to selliiig liquor after hours on July and charges of exposing -and opening were withdrawn. Sergeant J. Isbist’er stated that the hotel was visited at' 10 p.m. and the porter admitted him and the constable. There were six men at the bar counter, who with the licensee, admitted that thejr had no right to be on the premises. The licensee had no explanation. The Magistrate said .that the licensee was fined £5 on January 29 1934 a<nd had then an endorsement. Since then, on May 13 1935, the licensee had been convicted and fined £5 for opening after hours. The licensee would be fined £lO with costs 10s on the present charge, and it would, be a last chance without a second endorsement. If defendant came before him again he would endorse the lice u se.

John. Thomas Doyle, licensee of the Rapahoe Hotel (Mr. J. ,W. Hannan), pleaded guilty to selling liquor after hours on July 21, and the other two alternative charges were withdrawn. Evidence was given by Constable P. Swan JRiunanga, that' he found a man unlawfully on the premises, and he was at the slide, admitting a beer was his. Mr. Hannan staid that defendant had not been convicted since 1931. A fine of £2 with costs 12s was inflicted.

Richard Thornton was fined 10s with costs 12s for driving a motor vehicle without a license on July 3. Thomas Patrick Ryam for failing to keep to the left of the traffic dome at, the Mackay-Tainui Street intersection, was fined 10s and costs 10s.

Hilda Rose Brown, did not appear on a charge of having an unlicensed wireless set, in her possession on July 13. Alexander Walton, Inspector for the Post and Telegraph Department, said that the set’ was* purchased on April 9 and defendant was warned on three occasions to purchase a license. Defendant refused to obtain a license. The license had not been procured, but the set had been returned to t’he 'dealer. A fine of £1 10s with costs 10s was* inflicted. Robert William Leach, for allowing a horse to wander in Reid Street, Blaketown on July 17. was on the information of Inspector H. Lane (Mr. J. W. Hannan fined ss» with costs 10s, end solicitor’s fee 10s 6d.

Inspector Lane s<aid that defendant had had three warnings, and admitted ownership. On the information of the Inspector of Nuisances, (Mr. H. Lane), William N. Brown was fined 5s with costs 10s and solicitor’s fee 10s 6d, for keeping an unregistered dog. On the information of the Inspector of Mines* (Mr. C. J. Strongman) Charles, Thomas, Samuel, George, and Henry Pinn, owners of the Jubilee Coal Mine, were charged that, where and when more than 10 were employed they did employ Robert Longstaff amanager, h e not being the holder of a second class or superior certificate. Defendants did not appear.

The Inspector stated that a second class* certificate was required and in this case, the manager was an underviewer only. Tn this case ton men wore employed, which was one more than the permitted number. It was a technical breach and one hard to ■detect. T 1 was a practice rather com mon in the district, and he would like 1o put a stop to it. Each defendant was fined 5s with 2s* costs.

N. R. W. Brown (Mr. J. W. Hannan) applied for remission or variation of arrears totalling £64 5s to (Into, in respect of a Tnaintc/innc.e order in favour of his wife Mrs. L. A. Brown, and three children (Mr. A. M. Jamieson), and providing for fhr payment' of £2 per week. Orders were made (1) remitting arrears except £l2; (2) arrears to he paid off at the rate of 2s 6d per week together with current maintenance, in respect of the children; and in res*pect of the wife, (1) remitting arrears except? £2O; (2) arrears tn ho paid off nt the rate of 2/6 a week together with current maintenance until the £l2 ar rears for children are paid off and thereafter 5s a week off arrears; (3) costs to- wife £2 2s; solicitor*sfee and £1 Is sjolicil'or’s fee for taking of her evidence. The Magistrate said that a lot of the arrears were due to the defendant’s had health. John Cotter, licensee of the Dominion Hothi l , Greyniont'h, was charged with opening his premises for the sale of liquor, selling, and exposing liquor, after hours on July 25. Similar charges were laid against the barman, Vincenfi Steward Gonlding. Mr. J. W. Hannan appeared for both defendants. The licensee pleaded guilty to the charge of celling, and the charges of opening and exposing were withdrawn by Ih ( i police. The harman pleaded not’ guilty to all charges. Two men charged with being found on the premises did not appear. Mr Hannan said that the facts were not disputed, but the charges against the. barman were disputed on a point of law. The informations aga nHi' both defendants were laid under Section 190 of the Licensing Actl and he (Mr. Hannan) submitted that that Section covered the licensee, and the licensee only, and the barman could not be charged under t’he same section. Senioir-Sergean't Quayle said that Gonlding was the licensee’s agent aid was in charge of tl e hotel. Mr Ha m an: The licens.. was no’ away, he was merely out at the p;«ctui ea. The Magistrates he was only an ordinary servant? Mr. llannan: Yes. The Senior-Sergeant said that ouSunday, July 25 4 at 8.25 p.m. he visited tfhe premises with Constable Brown. The two men charged with being found on the premises were in the parlour with glasses of beer in their hands and admitted that fhey had been supplied by Gonlding. Goulding said that he had supplied the •liquor to a boarder named Morgan and when Morgan denied it, Gonlding said that Morgan had given him £1 for Board, and he had taken the price of the drinks out of it', thinkin^^hat,

the men wcr e with Morgan. Goulding was the regulaj- barman, and was seeking a certificate of fitness to take over the licence. Constable Brown corroborated the statement's of the Senior-Sergeant. The Magistrate said that a special section of the Act, 205 1 provided for servants, and that was the usual one uuder which a barman was charged. Section 190 deals with licensed persons, and would cover a manager who was appointed by the Licensing Bench. When there was a specific- section the barman should be charged under that section. Even theu x in the present case, >he could convict Goulding under Section 205 4 on the facts, Mr. Hannan said That' th e case was simply one of carelessness. The boarder Morgan, had previously been down for drinks for himself and two other boarders* who were upstairs. When the tw6 men charged walked in without hats, Gouldiug thought they wcre Morgan’s friends from upstairs and served them, actuary dekb’riug the amount fm the drinks OIU of the £1 which Mc’gan had terj’crel for board. The two men found on the both statutory first offenders, wo ; c each fined £1 with 10s cost's. The Magistrate said that th? charge? of opening and exposing against Goulding would be dismissed, but he would be convicted on that charge that* being a person other than the licensee, he did supply liquor. The Senior Sergeant said I'hat Gould ing had no convictions since he had been on the West Coast. Previously he had held a license in Christchurch and he had been convicted tlien.

The Magistrate inflicted a fine of £2 with 10s costs.

Mr Hannan said that Cotter had held a license for twenty years, and had never had a conviction. He hadgiven instructions on this occasion that liquor was not to be supplied, but it had been, through carelessness, and he suggested that a conviction without penalty might meet the case. In reply to the Magistrate, Mr Hannan said that Goulding proposed to take over the hotel. The Magistrate said that it was rather unfortunate for Cotter, as Goulding seemed to have got him into trouble. He would be convicted and ordered to pay costs, 10s. Frank Preston was charged with being found on the licensed premises of the Hotel Richmond after hours on July 12th. He pleaded not guilty. The licensee, Andrew Kyle, was charged wit'h aiding and abetting Preston’s offence. He also pleaded not guilty. Mr J. W. Hannan appeared for both defendants.

Senior Sergeant Quayle said that the premises were visited at 10.10 p.m.. by Sergeant Isbister and Constable McDonald. On approaching the door, they could hear a noise of feet inside, and a woman ran from the front' sitting room towards the front door. It was some time before the door was opened by the licensee. The Sergeant had not’ieed the pantry door locked and when he opened it, he found Preston inside.

Sergeant Isbister said That if was about two minutes before the licensee opened the door A and then, with the licensee, witness went' into the bar. the cellar, and a number of the rooms along the passage. There was no one there, and witness then went infio the kitchen, and noticed that the pantry was locked. He asked the licensee to open if but he said that hist wife had the key. Mrs Kyle said that the cook had the key, and that she was at the pictures. Witness then asked the 'icensee if the other keys opened the pantry, and was assured That they wre all different. Witness tried the key out of the kitchen door, and it fitted perfectly. He opened the pantry and found Preston in the darkness inside. Witness asked him whaT he was -doing there, and he said he was* there to get a feed. To Mr Hannan; I fhink Preston said he was working on the wharf that night. It, would be about crib time. When I was leaving the licensee said that, he had no idea. Preston was m the cupboard, but I do not remember him asking me to hear his side, and then interview Preston later, to se? if they tallied. Constable D. N. McDonald corrob orated the evidence of t’he Sergeant. He said that when he was sent round to the rcfir of the hotel by the Sergeant he saw seven or eight men running down Johnston Street, although he <li<l rot actually see them come out of the hotel. Mr Hannan said the* the facts of the case were that Preston wan working on the wharf and during erib time lie wont over to the hotel for a. cup of tea and something to eat, which yas the recognised custom. He was admitted by the porter, and went down to the kitchen. When the police came in. he went into the pantrv and locked himself in. The licensee was quitUnaware that he was there. The Jieonsee said that he had not. noon Preston before he came out of the pnntry. To the S.M.: The men running down Johnst on SI ret had not come from the premises. He could not say who the woman was in the sitting room—it may have been someone using the phono. There was no .need for anyone to give an alarm, as there was no one or. tho premises. He thought that he got to the door reasonably quick, as he was out the back. The noise heard by the Sergeant may have been t’he boarders walking about. Witness got the dining room key for the Sergeant to open tho pantrv. All of tho locks were supposed to be’ different. Preston was in the kitehen having slipper, and got a bit of a fright and went into the cupboard and locked himself in. Tho defendent', Preston, said that he was a whnrf labourer, and on tho night, in question ho was working on the Ngnkuta. He made arrangements to have erib at the hotel and was admitted by the porter. Moran. He was having a drink of tea in the kitchen when tho police camo in. Ho thought it best to bo nut of lhe road, to save nremments. Ho went into tho pantry, 'oeked tho door, and put',the. key, which was in the inside, in his pocket.

To the Senior-Sergeant: I took the kev out because if the Sergeant put. the torch through the keyhole and saw n key on tho inside ho would swear that' there was someone inside. He (defendant) was not asked for an explanation. but was ordered out of the hotel by the Sergeant. He bad gone into the cupboard to save arguments because he had been fold before “tel that' to the Magistrate,” and ho thought “out of sight—out of mind. ’ ’

Th c Magistrate said that, it was a very ingenious excuse as far as Pres ton wa?n concerned, hut’ he could not swallow it. Tie (the Magistrate) was not satisfied that the licensee ftctuallv knew that Preston was on the premises although someone had locked him in

the pant'ry. Preston would be fined £l, witb 10s costs, and the charge against the licensee dismissed.