TE KUITI COURT.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 583, 9 July 1913, Page 7

TE KUITI COURT.

TUESDAY, Bth JULY, 1913. 0 Before Mr E. Rawson, S.M. 1 LIQUOR LAW BREACHES. J. Rowntree and Buxton and Angew, * publicans, were fined respectively 20s and 40s and coUs for technical breaches of the Licensing Act. P John McLaughlan, charged with bringing unlabelled liquor into a pro- ' claimed area without having it proper- " ly labelled, pleaded guilty. In ex- ' planation defendant said the liquor should really have been sent to the Rotorua line, but being a trifle "under ' the influence" a mistake had been made and the liquor had come with him to Te Kuiti. Sergt. Rowell said the explanation was probably correct and a fine of 20s and cc3ts was inflicted. Donald John Smith, for whom Mr Finlay appeared, had to reply to three charges. In the matter of bringing in an unlabelled package of grog and for not notifying the vendor of his name and address, defendant pleaded guilty. On the charge of keeping liquor for sale a plea of not guilty was entered. Sergt. Rowell said defendant was asked by the publican who supplied the liquor if it was for the King Country, and defendant aaid it was not. H. A. Lux, hotelke=per at Te Awamutu, said defendant came to the hotel in company with a land agent, in a motor car. After being there for some time defendant got fifteen bottles of whisky packed in a portmanteau. Witness asked if it was intended for the King Country, and defendant said no. Defendant got the bag about 6 p.m. and departed in the car. He was quite sober. Constable Capp said on July 2nd he was in front of the Commercial boarding house at Te Kuiti about half-past seven in the evening. He saw a man coming from tha station carrying a bag and walking on the dark side of the street. Witness went to cross the street and get in front of the | man when the latter put the bag down and walked back. Witness examined the bag and went away. He ( kept watch and in about twenty min- , utes saw a man walk from the post , office to the station and come along ] to the bag. The man struck matches ] and examined the bag and when wit- ] ness aproached defendant offered him ■ 10a to let him get away with it. Wit- , ness charged defendant with being the | owner of the bag, and defendant re- ; plied that he. wa3 not but knew who < was. Witness and defendant pro i ceeded to the police office and defen- ( dant offered Sergt. Rowell and wit- , ; ness £1 each to say nothing absut the matter Defendant admitted owning \ the liquor and said he had got softieone ,- else to take it off the train.

Serg. Rowell corroborated the evidence aa to defendant's action at the police office. Defendant said he knew nothing about the licensing law. Witness said defendant had been a witness in a grog case. Defendant was sober. Mr Pinlay at this stage requested leave to confer with his client for a few minutes. Upon returning to court Mr Finlay said his instructions concerning the case had been wrong from beginning to end. However, defendant persisted in his statement that the liquor was not for sale. He admitted the correctness of the police evidence. Continuing counsel said he would depend for his defence! upun a technical point and the good character of defendant. The police admitted defendant's character was good. The point raised by Mr Finlay wag to the effect that defendant could not possibly have kept the liquor for sale. The liquor had practically been in the possession of the police since it arrived at Te Kuiti. Sergt. Rowell contended that directly the liquor entered the proclaimed area in possession of defendant it could be said to have been kept for sale. His worship intimated he would take time to consider the point. In giving his decision this morning on the technical point raiseti by Mr Finlay, his Worship said he was satisfied the defendant could be held to have been keeping the liquor. No evidence having been forthcoming to offset the assumption that the liquor was being kept for sale, defendant would be convicted and fined £5 and costs. On each of the two minor charges a fine of £2 and costs would be imposed.

ILL-TREATING A HORSE. STRONG REMARKS BY MAGISTRATE FINE OP TEN POUNDS. John Todd, on a charge of cruelly ill-treating a horse by working it while it had a sore back, pleaded guilty. On the serious nature of the charge being pointed out to him defendant said he would like to plead not guilty. Sergt. RoWell, who conducted the prosecution, said he understood defendant was going to plead guilty. If the plea was altered he Would apply for an adjournment to enable witnesses to be called. Defendant then said he would plead guilty. Constable Capp, in evidence, said that in response to a telephone message he proceeded to the quarry where defendant was working his horses and found the men in the quarry very indignant concerning the treatment of the horse. Wintess said the horse had two very bad Boreß, one on each side of the wither. The horse was very weak and apparently could hardly stand. There was a nasty smell from the wounds. He was informed by the quarrymen that defendant had cruelly beaten the animal. In reply to defendant witness said the other horses were in good condition. Defendant's explanation was to the effect that he had applied call cure to the wounds, and they were apparently healed when he put the saddle on. The

horse worked in the shafts and the aores had evidently not been healed under the surface and had broken out again. His Worship said he hesitated a) to whether he should not send defendant to gaol. A fine of £lO would be inflicted and defendant could consider himself lucky in not beirg sent to gaol. CIVIL CASES. Judgment went by default in the following undefended cases:—NichoJls v. Maher, £8 14s lOd, and costs £3 2s; Dooley and Co. v. Smith, 15s sd—lss; Earl, Kent and Howarth v. Parmer, £ll6 15s 7d—£2; Reardon and Son v. Tawhana, £6l 4s sd—£s 4s 6d; same v. Smith, £l4 7s sd—£2 Is 6d; Green and Colebrook v. Robinson, £9 10a 6d —23s 6d; Graham v. Williams, £3 Is Id—10s; Clapham v. Nelaon, £5 15s 6d—23s 6d: Stevens v. Graham. £2 10s—-10s; same v. Daniel, £4 0s 7d—20s; Graham v. Ngaronga, £4 3a 9d—17s 6d; Stevens v. Aldred, £lO 18s lid—3os Gd; Graham v. Collett, £l3 15s 4d—3os 6d; Anderson and Riley v. Riddle, £23 17s 9d—£4 2s; Thomson v. Searancke, £2 10s—15s; Hawley v. Ruk'uku, 15s—19s; Thomson v. Taylor, £3s—£2 19s.