HASTINGS MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIII, Issue 71, 7 March 1923, Page 5

HASTINGS MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TO-DAY’S SITTING. (Before Mr. R. W. Dyer, S.M.) ADJOURNMENT. Tiro charges against Gordon, George and Ernest Wall, of assaulting David Francis Kemp, which were adjourned from the last sitting of the Court, were called but were further adjourned to the 14th inst. RACECOURSE TRESPASS.

William Snow, alias Leigh, was charged with on January 2. at Hastings, trespassing on the racecourse, Accused wrote saying that he had received a free ticket for admission to the racecourse from the Y.M.GA. last year, as he was a returned soldier.

Mr. H. Holderness said that the Y.M.C.A. had been allowed to give these tickets, but he understood that that method of distribution had been discontinued.

Racecourse Detective Baskeville and Detective Fitzgibbon gave evidence. Accused, who had a bad record, was fined £2O and costs 12/-, or two months’ .imprisonment. WARNING TO TRAPPERS.

Andrew L. Thow was charged with, at Hastings, on October 27. selling 48 opossum skins, such skins not having been sold through a licensed dealer. Defendant, through his solicitor,.Mr. E. J. W. Hallett, pleaded guilty. Sergeant Hogan said that defendant had a license to trap opossums, but ho sold the skins to a Mr. Zala, a furrici who was not licensed to sell skins. It was the first offence of its kina in Hastings. Mr. Hallett said that defendant lived in the backblocks. Mr. Zala gave him to understand ho was entitled to sell the skins. The royalty liad been paid on the skins, which showed there was no intent to evade legitimate fees, And. as a matter of fact, defendant could have got more if he had dealt with a licensed broker. Defendant was fined £5 and costs 7/-. THE DEFENCE ACT. For failing to attend drill, R. J. Long was fined £2 and R. Cameron, £3, with costs in each case 7/-, in default 21'days’ military detention. MAINTENANCE. Ernest Odium was charged with disobedience of an order for the maintenance of his wife and two children. The arrears stood at £6l 10/-. Defendant was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, the warrant to be, suspended on payment of £2O tfithr ing a fortnight, and £1 a week, in addition to the current payment the order, with costs 21/Tuti Waikare. for disobeying an order for the maintenance of his illegitimate child, was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, the order to be suspended for a fortnigljL. Ofi the payment of the arrears £lO 12/0. Roy George Watkins was sued by ms wife for the maintenance of his child. Mr. Dpff appeared for complainant and Mr. Hallett represented defendant. It appears that there had been an old separation order, but the parties had come together again, which quashed the maintenance order for thg. wife, and the legal question arose, whether this position affected the child’s mainMr. Hallett said his client had no objection to paying the child’s maintenance, but he was not satisfied with the manner in which the child was • looked after. Defendant was bound to see that his child was properly cared for and. if he was not properly looked after, then he should be placed somewhere he could be. or he was prepared to take the boy himself. Evidence was heard and the case was adjourned for a week to hear legal Argument on the point raised. WARNING TO HOUSEHOLDERS. Erie J. Napier was charged with interfering with, a Hastings municipal electric light line. Mr. E. H. Williams (borough solicitor)- said that Napier owed an account to the Borough Council for electric light supply. A Council employee went to the house to'cut off the supply but found the house tenanted. Ihe tenant left soon after and the official visited the house again and cut the wire. Napier returned to the house and* he wrote a letter- to the Council saying that he found the wire cut and , he thought it was broken. That was not possible, because when the official x?ut the wire he twisted it bjrok. It should be plain, especially to a mechanic like defendant, what had been done. In joining up the wire defendant ran a risk of his life, only for his knowledge as a mechanic. He did not press for a heavy penalty, but the public must be impressed with the fact that they must not meddle with the wires; which might occasion loss of life. He had nothing against defendant, who was a respectable citizen, but he obey the law. Mr. Hallett said, for the defence, that defendant did not know he had committed an offence and he >did not w.ilfully interfere with the wire in that sense. Napier had sub-let the house, and after the tenant left the house he went down and found that he could not switch on the electric light. .He noticed a wire hanging down outside. He did not know the wire was cut and thought it was broken. It might be that a wire was turned back, but it might have been turned back by spnroone for safety’s sake. Defendant’s sole object was to connect the wires to the house. It would not affect, the measurement qf th© current, which still went through the meter. At the tiqro he joined ud he did not know he owed money to the Council. He thought no current would be supplied to the house unless arrears had been- paid. The borough official told him the wires had been cut and defendant replied that he did not know it. so he wrote to the Council, saying he had acted iir ignorance. There was no intent to defraud.

Mr. Williams protested against Mr Hallett pleading guilty and then malting statements to influence the bench which were not proved and which he (Mr. Williams) had no opportunity of refuting. He did not ask for a heavy penalty against defendant. His Worship said he would receive Mr. Hallett’s statements as arguments according to his instructions, but net as proof. The public must be made aware that they must not interfere with the electric wires and that, if they did. they were liable to a £5O fine. If what Mr. Hallett said was true, he almost wondered why defendant pleaded guilty. Defendant would be fined £3 and costs 28s.

CIVIL CASES. •■Judgment was given for plaintiffs in the following undefended cases;—F. L. Bone v. H. Hedley, £1 <l7/6, costs £2 0/6; Hoadley, Son and Stewart, Ltd. v. Bruce McKay, £l4 10/6\ costs-£3 1/; A* J H. Kirkham and Geo. Janpeson v. Puhu Whaatu, £7 7/. costs £2 4/6; ,T. Hopnor v. J. McCarthy. £1 18, co B ts 8/; same v. O. C. Tlionison, £l7 10/, costs .£2,16/.