HASTINGS COURT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 154, 15 June 1932, Page 7

HASTINGS COURT

(Before Mr S. L. Patterson, S.M.) TO-DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. Jack Beatson was charged with being jn arrears, to the extent of £6lO 10/-, in respect of the maintenance of his wife, and £203 10/- in arrears for the maintenance of his child. On the application of counsel the accused was remanded for 14 days, bail being allowed in self £2OO and two sureties of £2OO each.

Stewart Devenie, Bert Stafford and Allen Patchett were each charged with riding a motor cycle to which no sideear was attached and upon which more than two persons were being carried. Pleas of guilty were entered by Devenie and Patchett. Stafford did not appear

Constable Baxter said he saw the three defendants on the motor cycle. Patchett was in control of the machine. Devenie said he was ignorant of the law. He was ordered to pay 10/Court costs. Stafford was fined 5/- in addition to the costs, and Patchett was fined 10/-, with similar costs.

ON LICENSED PREMISES. Frank Price, William Wells and Stewart Devenie were each charged with, on June 4 last, being found on licensed premises, the Albert Hotel, Hastings, at a time when such premises were required to be closed. All pleaded not guilty. In evidence, Senior-Sergeant O’Neill said that he saw the three defendants through the main door of the hotel. He spoke to them, but Devenie was the only one to reply. He said he went there “to see Stanley,” the licensee. Asked what he wanted to see Stanley for Devenie said “That is not a fair question to ask.” Witness then said he could tell the Magistrate. Counsel for the defendants said that Price had business with a Mr Benbow, who was a guest at the hotel, and the other two defendants were in his company. So they went with Price to the office. Price went to make enquiries, but did not see anyone about. In evidence. Price said that as he came out of the hotel he was accosted by the Senior-Sergeant, and as he had not seen anyone on the premises he had no excuse to offer so did not inform the officer. Cross-examined, he said he did not mention Benbow to the Senior-Ser-geant. He admitted having had a few drinks.

His Worship said that he would accept the evidence of the police and each defendant would be fined £1 with costs 10/-. Counsel asked that an order be made for the suppression of the name of one of the defendants, but His Worship declined to do so.

IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED. Hugh Kirkwood was charged with, on June 14, at Hastings, being found drunk whilst in charge of a motor vehicle in Omahu road. He pleaded guilty. Senior-Sergeant O’Neill said that at 6.10 o’clock last evening, the defendant collided into a car near the intersection of Market and Eastbourne streets. He did not stop and was subsequently accosted by a constable at Stortford Lodge. He was then hopelessly inebriate. He had been twice previously convicted on similar charges whilst in charge of the same lorry. Counsel for the defendant said that Kirkwood realised that very little damage was done by the impact so continued on his way. He was quite capable of controlling his vehicle. He was a married man with a family of five children, all dependent upon him. Counsel pointed out that the defend, ant was a carrier and the lorry was his only means of earning a livelihood. Counsel asked that his license be not cancelled under the circumstances. “He should have considered his wife before he had his drinks,” said His Worship. “A man drunk in charge of a vehicle is a danger to life and limb. He has been twice previously beforo the Court, and has not learnt his lesson. I would be failing in my duty if I did not impose imprisonment. He will be sentenced to 14 days’ hard labour. I should cancel his license, but in this instance his license will be endorsed and he will be prohibited from holding a license for three years unless he takes out, and maintains, a prohibition order against himself.”

DEFENDED CIVIL ACTION. D. G. Riddiford claimed from John M. Brown £l7 17/*, being amount allegedly due for goods supplied. The defendant admitted receiving the goods but contended that they were handed to him on consignment. lie produced the goods in Court. His Worship said that the defendant should have returned them to plaintiff, who was now entitled to judgment for the full amount claimed. Costs amounting to £4 18/were also given against the defendant.