MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

King Country Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 309, 5 November 1910, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TE KUITI— THURSDAY. Before Mr F. O.'B. Loughnan, S.M

Before the usual Court sat Constable Mattehws formally opened the Native Land Court and adjourned it until Saturday morning. Police v. Boviard.—This was a case where defendant, an official at the Auckland railway station, was charged with sending liquor improperly labelled, into the King Country. The evidence showed that he had despatched a parcel on behalf of Mr King, who had not time to attend to it. _ The foreman was under the impression it could go, but defendant found the propei' course was to treat it as excess luggage. The Magistrate held that it was a"technical breach of the Act. and the case should not have been brought. Defendant was only doing what the regulations told him to do. He accordingly dismissed the case. A number of cases brought by the police against various offenders against sobriety were disposed of as follows:—McMahon 10-? and 7s costs; McConncll, 5s and 7s costs; John Smith, a first offender, convicted and discharged. James Collin, on a similar charge called a witness, who said defendant was "not incapably drunk, as far as he could see." Witness admitted he could not tell when a man was drunk. The Magistrate: Well, you see; there are two experts who know.

Here a legal wit quoted, sotto voice: "Not drunk is he who, from the floor Can rise, and drink, and call for

more. But drunk indeed, who prostrate lies, Without the power to drink, or rise." The Magistrate convicted defendant and fined him 5s and 7s costs,

Police v. McMullen, a prohibited person procuring liquor. Defendant admitted the order was for his own good, but claimed he did not take a drink for six months, and the first he had he fell in. He was fined 10s and 7s costs.

Police v. McMicken, a prohibited person, charged with procuring liquor on October sth last. Mr Finlay, for defendant, raised the novel point that the justices who made out a further prohibition order for six months against the defendant, had no such powers, as 12 months was the shortest period. Constable Matthews showed that the offence complained of occurred during the first twelve months prohibition. The Magistrate fined defendant 5s and costs 13s and called upon him to-take out a prohibition order against himself for 12 months.

KEEPING LIQUOR FOR SALE. Police v. VV. Ford, charged with, on the 2nd and 3rd August, and on the 21st September keeping liquor for sale. The police evidence went to show that a number of men were gathered in a room at the back of defendant's shop, drinking and making a noise. Mr Finlay, for defendant, brought evidence to show that the liquor brought in on the 2nd and 3rd of August was the property of a man called Vicary, who asked Ford to store it for him. The whisky was stored in the kitchen at the back of the work room. In the case of the 21st September the whisky had been clubbed together for by Ford and his friends. Mr Finlay protested against the vague and inaccurate evidence brought by the police. The evidence of Fred Keeley, D. Mitchell, Whare Bell, Chas. Lowry and Frank Henry was taken, and bore out defendant's solicitor's contention. The charges were accordingly dismissed.

Police v. Peter McDonagh (Mr Finlay), employed as roadman at Marakopa, charged with receiving an order for liquor and keeping liquor for sale on October 20th. Defendant said he went to Hamilton, bought a shirt and other things and a case and a half of whisky. He got most of the whisky home and they polished it off. Mr Finlay said no order was given because two men joined to get a joint supply. The fundamental idea was to stop brewers canvassing the district. Constable Matthews argued that if a man went from Te Kuiti and took money to buy whisky for another he was obtaining an order. The Magistiate said if his mate said "I will go halves in a purchase," he did not think that was an order. A. H. Wright deposed that defendant was a good worker, earning 12s and 13s a day. J. O'Neill gave evidence for the defence also. The Magistrate pointed out to defendant that before the matter was finished with defendant would be quite £2O out of pocket. He believed him to be a hard working man, and would like to see him on a place of his own. Ho did not believe any order had been solicited. It appeared to be a case of two mates joining together in getting a supply. He dismissed the case. CRUELTY TO A HORSE.

Police, v. VVm. Cole, charged with cruelly ill-treating a horse by leaving it tied up from Sunday to Wednesday evening without attention beyond a casual mention of it to a Maori. The Magistrate said it would serve defendant right if he gave him a term of imprisonment. He did not intend to do that, but he inflicted a fine of £lO and costs 7s.

CIVIL CASES. The following cases were given judgment for plaintiff by default: - Williams and Bruce (Mr Finlay) v. Wilcock, £25 16s 10d, and £l Is costs; same v. J. F. Duncan, £23 lis (id, and £4 Is costs; same v. Chane, £B6 9s 9d. and £5 10s 6d costs; Darbyshire v. Knivett, £2 3s 9d and 5s costs; Rouse v. Paterangi, £3 13s or in de-fault-1 days' imprisonment; Zobel v. Dcnnison, £1 12s, or in default 4 day's imprisonment; Auckland Timber Worlu-rs' Union (Mr Finlay) v. Geo. Hy. Groves, a claim for £7 lis amount of arrears of subscriptions. Defendant said he was a yardman at the sawmill and earned less than £2 a week ot* of which he had to pay 25s for blard. He offered 2s 6d a month. Order made accordingly.