MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 6 October 1922, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

BY DEFAULT,

WEEKLY SITTING.

The weekly sitting of the Hawera Magistrate's Court was commenced yesterday, Mr J. S. Barton, S.M., presiding.

Judgment for the plaintiff with costs against the defendant was given in each of the following undefended civil cases: Adamson and Robb v. Wai Wai Tamahaki, £62 7s 6dj William Gilbert v. Harold Gray, £21 5s 4d; Alfred F. Bulmer v. J. Whittington, £48 4s.

JUDGMENT SUMMONS,

Tony Urlich obtained an order on a judgment summons against John Hill for the sum of £16 18s 6d. Penalty for default was fixed at 18 days' imprisonment.

BY-LAW CASES,

The borough inspector proceeded against Frederick J. H. Nancafrow for T leaving a motor ear standing in South c, road without lights attached. Defend- : ant was fined 15s and 7s court costs. 1For leaving a motor car standing in I Argyle street without lights attached j Ira Bridger was fined 15s and 7s court \ j costs. ! Henry H. Moller was charged with leaving a motor ear in Victoria street without lights attached. He was fined < 15s and 7s court costs. William B. White was charged with ' leaving a motor ear standing in Albion ' street without lights attached. He .' was fined 15s and 7s court costs. George E. Frisk was charged with ' driving a motor car around the inter- '■ section of Princes and High streets at i a greater speed than six miles per j hour/ He was fined £1 and 7s court costs. 1 . For driving a delivery van across the intersection of Princes and High streets at a greater speed than six miles per hour, Ernest James A. Waugh was fined 15s and 7s court costs* James Somervail was charged with riding a motor cycle along Princes street without a front number attach- • cd. He was fined 15s and 7s court PROCURING LIQUOR WHILST PROHIBITED. His Worship Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M., delivered the following judgment on the case of Police.v. J. fi. Ironsides, heard at the Hawera Court last week: The defendant is charged with that,' being the subject.of a prohibition order, he did_ procure liquor during the currency of such order. The prosecution , proved that the defendant was prohibited by an order of this court dated March 14, 1922; that on September 20, 1922, in consequence of a complaint' by a relative of defendant, he (defendant) was found by the police in a state of intoxication on the local railway station, and that the defendant admitted there and then that he nad had in-' toxieating drink. Giving evidence on hisfown behalf the defendant stated that he had had whisky on the day in question. He deposed that he was a manufacturing chemist, and that in connection with that business he kept liquors of an intoxicating nature in his business premises, and that he had had the whisky in question in his possession since some date prior to Christmas Day, 1921. I see no reason to disbelieve this evidence. Taking all these facts into consideration, I find that the defendant purchased or^j)rocured the liquor in question not during the currency of the prohibition order, but before the order was made. If, therefore, j 'the matter is to'be tested only by sub-; j section (IV of section 214 of the Licens-! - ing Act, 1908, it is clear that no offence is disclosed. That sub-section runs:! "No person against whom a prohibition' order- has been made shall during the. 1 currency of such order purchase or pro-' j cure any liquor from any person whomsoever." It is provided, however, by sub-section (2) that "the fact of such j ! person being found drinking liquor or. having it in his possession shall be ' sufficient evidence of his having pro- ' cured it in breach of this section," s ' and that at least calls for consideration. 'I propose to deal first with the question: What is the effect of the pro-' vision that a certain fact shall be "sufficient" evidence of a breach of the law? Stroud's Judicial dictionary gives the. following note on the use of this term: "Anything which, is duly pre-; scribed as •sufficient evidence' of a fact is .enough evidence thereon to_go to the, jury; but the other side is not preclud-, ed from controverting it by other evi- 1 j dence," and the learned author quotes authorities in support of the definition,, jln fact this distinction between "suf-; ficient" evidence and "conclusive" evi-j dence is made clear by all authorities ion the subject of evidence. The fact, ; therefore, of;a prohibited person being found with a bottle of whisky in his' hands is not conclusive evidence of having procured'it in breach of this section, and it is still open to him to convince the Court, if he' can, that, it came into his hands in/ some way not involving a breach.of the section. That the loopholes exist to enable this defence to be raised must be laid at the door of the Legislature; no rules of construction that I am aware of justify this court in extending the plain meaning and effect of the prohibitive words used. On this finding as to the effect of the term "sufficient evidence" it is not necessary to decide the question of whether or not the words "being found! govern both acts described in the subsection, viz., "drinking liquor" and "having it in his possession." If they do, it is clear that the statutory ruling of what is "sufficient evidence" is applicable only to cases wheie the accused person can be described as "being found having liquor in his possession." Ini the present case, therefore, I am of opinion that no offence is proved, and the information is dismissed. LIQUOR AFTER HOURS. James Nicfiol Anderson, licensee of the Empire Hotel, was charged by the police at the Magistrate's Court yesterday with opening his premises for the sale of liquor after hours, and on another count with selling liquor after hours. Percy Eastßury was charged by the police with being found on licensed premises when such premises were required by law to be closed. Sergeant Henry conducted the case for the police and Mr. P. ODea appeared for the defendant. In opening the case Sergeant Henry stated that on September 21 at 6.5 p.m/ Consta£*& T/emm visited the Empire Hotel, anu found Eastbury in the commercial room. The constable asked Eastbury if he were a boarder, but he replied that he came there to give some pheasants' feathers to a friend working on tne premises. At 6.15 the constable returned and found Eastbury still there. Cocarau came- into the room, and said that Eastbury was a friend of , his. Anderson then came into the room j with two drinks on a tray. Corcoran had been to'flie hotel for lunch, and had asSe*"s Mrs. Anderson for a room. lAt 6 r.'So~ p.m. Corcoran was not aware of the room which he said had been allotted. Constable "Eemm ,in giving evidence. saT5 he was'sfcanding on the corner of Princes Street and High Street whQn ho saw Eastbury go into the hotel. He

olloweS him and accosted Eastbury, f rho had some feathers in> his hand, s t'hich he said fie was delivering to the h larmaid. Witness advised him to a cave the premises, and then walked s iut. Ke came back ten minutes later, 1 inik on entering the commercial room j le found' xiTastbury still there. Cor- v :oran then came into the room, and i said: "It's all right; he is a friend >f mine."' The licensee then came in { tntlß 'two drinks on a tray. The conjtable said that he then took names and iciuresses and left to bring the ser- s cant. When he came back with the f sergeant Tie first saw Corcoran in the. passage near the office with a light avercoat on. Later m his evidence he j stated that on that occasion he first, saw T^rcoran in the commercial room. ! 1 Hie constable said that Anderson told , him that he was working in the bar. ' when there was a knock at the door, j , He opened it, and Corcoran ordered two ! ' drinks. Anderson said that he did not know who the drinks were for, but; merely took them into the commercial: room. Cross-examined, the constable said it < was not tlie iirst time he had brought | off a catch like this. He had been in ! the force for three years, and had been I in Hawerasince July last. He went' into the SbTeT about 6.5 p.m., and saw ( Eastbury wTth some feathers in his j hand. He made no inquiries about i Corcoran having Been at the hotel for lunch. Sergeant TTenry said in evidence that on receiving certain information he: went to the Empire Hotel with Con- j stable Lemm. On going into the com-' mercial room he found Anderson and Corcoran, and he asked the last men-, tioned person if he were a boarder, j Corcoran replied that he had had din-' ncr at the hotel, and had booked a I room with Mrs. Anderson. He further' said that he did not know the number of the room which had been allotted him. He intended to get the number after tea. Witness said that he called Mr. Anderson into the passage and told ' him of certain happenings at the hotel, j Witness said that Corcoran was a very ' reputable man. Sergeant Henry then* addressed the court on the law, contending .that Corcoran was not a boarder within the meaning of the Act. I Mr.O'Dea said that on this occasion: Corcoran came into Hawera from his i bush farm to attend a sale. He had dinner at the hotel, and told Mrs. Anderson that he would be staying the ; night. He came Back to the hotel just before 6 p.m.,, and a few minutes later he met "SSt&lJDury, who is an agent forthe Loan and Mercantile Co. Corcoran said: "You are just the man 1 \\jant to see," and he took Eastbury into iSe commercial room to arrange about entering some stock for the forthcoming sale. When the business had been completed Corcoran asked Eastbury if he would have a drink. William Corcoran said that he lived at Meremere, and came into Hawera on an average about once in two months. On the day in question he , brought stack into a sale. He had rtinner a£ the Empire Hotel, and on seeing Uirs. Anderson in the dining room he told her that he would be stopping; overnight. He did not pay for Ids Tuncfa, and returned to the hotel at about l££b p.m. He was'in the bar, and when six o'clock struck he came out and went into the commercial room. AT;' 6.5 p.m. He 7 was making for the dining room when he saw Eastbury standing in the passage with two feathers in his hand. He told Eastbury lie wanted^ "To see him, and so "they both went into the commercial room. Sfter they ha 3 Been talking for some time witness said to Eastbury "We had better "Have a drink." Eastbury said j"I am not. a boarder," hui '''Corcoran replied that that was all right, as he was. Witness went to the bar door aiJB orffere3 the drinks from Anderson. !' By his Worship: I had not told Anderson that I was a boardex.- ---| His Worship: Did Anderson make ' any demur about giving you the drinks ? I Witness: No. i Continuing, Corcoran said thjit he went back to the commercial room, and was going out again when he saw the constable come in and go into the com--1 mercial room. He heard the constable talking to Eastbury, and so he went >in and "told the constable thai it was all right as Eastbury was a guest of his. The constable took witness' name and address, and asked him if he was a boarder. Witness replied that he ■ was. Just about that time Anderson brought the drinks in and left them on the table. The constable then went ; away, and said that they would hear i more of the matter later. The constable returned with Sergeant Henry [ a few minutes later, and Sergeant • Henry asked witness *if he were a I boarder. Witness told him that he was. He J&en asked witness if he knew the number of his room, and witness told him that he did not. Wit■'ness said that the sergeant then asked if he had been up to his room. Witness told him that he had not, and in reply to another question Anderson said he did not know the number of the room. Mrs. Anderson was called, and she turned up the bedroom book ans showed it to Sergeant Henry. !In reply to Mr. ODea, witness said that from the time the constable left to the time the sergeant came he did not have any conversation with Mrs. Anderson. Several otfief times witness had booked a room at the Empire Hotel without knowing its num!ser. I Percy Eastbury, agent for the, New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Co., said that in. the morning he had been asked by the barmaid if he had any turkey feathers out at his place. She wanted them for a fancy dress at a skating carnival. He said he would lend her some pheasants' feathers. i However, he forgot about the feathers until 6 o'clock, when he took fFem down to the hotel. When he went into the hotel Corcoran came out of the commercial room, and said he wanted" to enter some stock for the next sale. Witness and Corcoran went into the commercial room, and after the business had been fixed up Corcoran asked him to have a drink.* Witness replied "It's after hours; I am not a boarder." Corcoran said "I am; it will be all right." Corcoran came back into the room shortly after the constable came in. The constable asked witness if he were a boarder, and witness said "no." Corcoran told .the constable that he had had lunch at the hotel, ha<T booked up for the night, and was having tea there. Names and addresses were taken, and Anderson then brought in the drinks. The constable went out, and said they would hear more about it. - . * James Nichol Anderson, licensee of the Empire Hotel, stated in evidence that on the day in question Mr. Corcoran knocked at the bar door about f 6.10 p.m., and ordered two drinks. He ! asked Mrs. Anderson if Corcoran had j booked up, and she said he had. He! took the drinks into €he room, *and there saw the consTatJle. The constable tolcl him that he halt befier gefr Eastbury away. Witness did not know then that Eastbury had been doing business with Corcoran. Eastbury wenfT away, and a little later the sergeant and the constable came in. Following on some questions Mrs. Anderson was called, and she gave the book to Sergeant Henry. Corcoran was booked up

tor room 18. Sergeant Henry said • something to witness- about the hotelkeepers of Hawera showing a certain imount of laxity of late, and witnesa said that if the sergeant could show him any laxity he would only be toopleased, to right it. The sergeant told, witness that he would probably hear more about the matter in question. When Corcoran came to the bar and ordered the drinks he did not say whom they were for. In reply to his Worship, witnesssaid he knew Corcoran would not ask for drinks unless he was a boarder. His Worship asked witness if hethought that 2s 6d for a bed would get immunity from the law. Witness confessed that he could not understand the Licensing Act and its amendments. He did not think there - was a hotel in Hawera that had a copy, and he thought hotelkeepers should besupplied with a copy. Mr. ODea addressed his Worship on the law, and the decision was reserved. Application by his wife was made against Samuel Rosewarne for a maintenance order in respect of his four children, and separation, maintenance, and guardianship orders in respect of complainant. An order for separation was made, the defendant being ordered to nay for the support of the complainant ~£i per week. BREACH OF PROHIBITION ORDER. Harold Gordon Tonks, a prohibited: person, was charged by the police onu three counts, with being found drunk on Glover Road on October 4, withi procuring liquor during the currency of a prohibition order, and with being" found with liquor in his possession on September 30 during the currency of t such order. Sergeant Henry said that the man was a good tradesman, but his whole trouble was drink. The defendant was convicted and fined £3. . ' . COLLISION CASE. ! The case in which Joe Martin, motori 'bus proprietor, of Opunake, claimed I from E. Henderson and Gordon Porter' the sum of £82 10s for damages as the result of a collision with" a motorcar, was continued. Further evidencej was given and the case was adjourned* j until to-day. _