MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Lake Wakatip Mail, Issue 3716, 26 October 1926, Page 4

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

QUEENSTOWN, 22nd OCTOBER. (Before Geo. Cruickshank, Esq., S.M.) 1 CIVIL CASES. W. McLaren, v J. Forbes.---Claim for £ls 18s 6d. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, court costs £1 j 13s, solicitor’s fee £1 11s. | POLICE CASE I (BREACH OF LICENSING ACT. j Police v. A. Jopp.—Charge that on { 29th August, 1926, at Arrowtown, being' the holder of a publican’s iicemsc for a house known as the Royal Oa.k Hotel, without, valid reason did refuse tp supply meals to travellers. •, In> specter Bird (Invercargill) conducted the prosecution. and Mr Robt. Gilkison, junr., appeared for defendant), who. pleaded not guilty. V. Mitchell, traveller for J. and J. Arthur, Dunedin (sworn) said that on August 29 he was one of a party of three mem and two ladies who left Roxburgh at 9 a.m. with the intention of .motoring through to the Lakes. They had, lunch at Low burn Ferry and! then went on to Wanaka. Comimg over the Crown Range-, they readied Arrowtown at 6,45 p.m. They went to the Royal Oak Hotel and asked Mrs Jopp for tea and accommodatiom • for the night. She told them that lea was on at 5.30 and they were too late as the. meal was over. Neither could she give them accommodation ras the house was full Witness said l they were hungry and wanted a meal. She replied that the. girls worked union hours and were, going' out to church. -After that ’witness, went out on the pavement and talked it over with his party. Wifchetsis. again approached Mrs Jopp, told her they were going on, and they wanted a cup of tea first Mr Jopp then came on the scene and Mrs Jopp called out, “Andy, Mr Mitchell demands a cup of tea." He made, no reply,and she suggested that witness should go to the other hotel. Witness said “No, we are go,lug to have it here.” To. this he added: “Do you refuse point blank to give as a cup of tea" and she replied “Yes," and said that she was within her right to do so as there was another hotel in the. town. Witness then told her that lie would report the matter to the local constable. She replied .“Very well” and witness went and reported to Constable O’Shea- at 7 p.m. Witness was perfectly sober, he asked for what they wanted in a respectful manner, and was prepared to pay for t'hhe refresh merits.. ■ The party then went on to Arthurs Point where they got good accommodation etc. for the night at Junction Hotel.—By Mr Gilkison: Had! been to. the Central Hotel on some previous occasions. Did not offer to pay Mrs Jopp for the refreshments before- hand. It was not customary to do so . George. Curtis Capon, or char dial, one of thhe party, gave corroborative evidence..

J ,'OJS'hea .police constable stationed at Arrowtown, deposed to. Mr Mitchell complaining to lum at 7 p.m. on August (29, that ire and his party had been refused tea and acconimodadiation at the Royal Oak Hotel at; 6.45 that evening. Mitchell was perfectly sober. When witness informed Mis Jopp of the complaint she said the tea was over wineiir the party arrived .and the girls had gone to church.; also that they had had an, extra busy day with callers on their way to tire closing of the Kawarau dam next day. The licensee, Mr Jopp, had nothing to. say. Mary Jopp, sworn, said they had one of the busiest days in the history of the hotel oar tire Sunday in, question as there was a tremendous lot ol traffic passing through to the Kawarau dam ceremony. The house was full, except for 2 rooms which were booked for occupation that night The hotel staff (4) worked union hours.. Dinner commenced at 1 pm. that -day and they were not. finished up till 4.30, and then witness had to help .as 2 girls were off. The other two girls had just, finished the tea a little before, 7, and were off to church: Witnes© and one of tire boarders had helped) them. to. get away to time;. Could not possibly liave given Mr Mitchell and party tire accommodation asked for. It would have taken quite a while to get a cup of tea ready as the fire, was banked- up. The best' could have done would have been bread and cheese, but no tea.. —By Inspector Bird: The party for whom the last 2 rooms had been, booked came along (ajfiter' Mr Mitchell’s party and witness gave them a meal and got them some tea. Did not offer Mr Mitchell any tiling. Said could not supply It—inspector Bird: Did you not know you are bound to supply refreshments to travellers if they are sober?’ Witness: Have never refused to .do so before. Was very tired, and the staff was off. Evidence- was given by the licensee that this was the first complaint the kind ever made in the 45 years, the hotel had been in the hands of thel family. Had often got up in the middle of the night to attend to travellers.

Counsel for defendantt said lie took it that the word “valid” was applied to the internal arran.gejn.ents of the hotel. The traffic that day was more, than abnormal; it was the. busiest in 14 years in the hotel. The stall’ worker! Tinder an award limiting their hoars to. 48. There, was no one in charge at the time, but Mr and Mrs Jopp, ■anidi the excuses put forward by Mrs Joppi were most reasonable:. A further point was that (here was nothing in the Act that took away the common Jaw of defence. Mitchell aid not tender any money for the refreshments asked for, and Counsel did not think the prosecution was entitled to succeed. in reviewing the evidence His \\ orsh'ip said It was a little unfortunate that the offence iiad occurred seeing that the hotel had been in the Jopp family for nearly half a century. K must be remembered, however, that there was a legal obligation to supply travellers with a meal and accommodation when the latter was availaide. That was what inns were for. It was a return for the privilege or night reserved to hotelkeepers to sell liquor under special license. Defendant would be convicted and ordered to pay witnesses’ expenses £7 9s, uciurt exists 11s.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. John. Craig 1 , Inspector under Society lor the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, v. John Hole Davis—Charge that on. 25th September, 1926, being tiie owner of a bay mare, did, by wantonly and unreasonably causing tiie said mare to be harnessed and worked while suffering from sores., permit unnecessary suffering *to be caused the said mate.

Robt, Giilkison, junr., appeared' for defendant, who. put in a letter pleading inability to be present owing to his being on steamer duty. Constable Dunn, who conducted the case for the prosecution, gave evidence as to having gone out to defendants farm on September 25 with John Craig, Inspector, S.P.C.A. Defendant was attending to the horse referred to. He had just taken it out of the milk cart The harness was .still on, it and witness ordered him to remove it When he did so they found a raw sore 3Ln by 2ln, full of ‘matter, on top of the wither. It had a doth on it but it afforded little protection. The animal was in poor condition. Asked defendant if he knew of tiie sore and he replied that he became, aware of it on the previous Wednesday and had been bathing it The boy in his* employ, aged! 15 ,had used the animal. Davis had 2 other horses but they had since been destroyed. He now had another which he got from Mt Fined £4, court costs 7s, solicitor's fee £1 Is. UNLICENSED HOSPITAL. , Robt. A. Shore, Medical Officer of Health, Otago. District, v Louisa Tryphena Fix—Charge that between the 21st and 27th days of July, 1926, at Queenstown, she did use a certain house, to wit, the house occupied! by her in Melbourne street as a private hospital, such house not being licensed as a private hospital under “The Hospital and Chari table Institutions. Act., 1909.

Robt. Gr.ilkison, junr., instructed by W Mdcalister, Crown Solicitor, Invercargill, appeared on. behalf of the Health Department, and W. Harlow (Clyde) represented defendant, who pleaded guilty. Outlining the case for the prosecution, Counsel said that the offence came under section 106 of 'the Act: “No house shall be used as a private hospital except under the authority of a license issued by the Minister under the Act” Unless a house was so registered it was not lawful to have more tlian one patient a't a time. A breach had occurred in that when the Health Inspector visited the house there were three patients in. The penalty to which the owner was liable was one not exceeding £5 per day for every day during which such use was continued. Defendant was a registered maternity nurse but not a registered midwife, and her house was not registered. She had been previously warned in May for having more than, ope patient In. On that occasion she wrote admitting the offence and the Health Department replied stating that they would not prosecute but that if the offence occurred again they would prosecute without notice. There was nothing against defendant herself as she was efficient, and tine house was scrupulously clean and well run. But to conform to the provisions of the Act it would cost a lot to convert it into a private hospital and a& there was already a registered private hospital in the town it would hardly pay defendant to do so. Mr Harlow said the facts were ,as outlined by Counsel, with the. exception that there were only two patients in the house at the time, .the third being a boarder. A maternity case was already in when the second, an urgent case of a different character, was admitted. Evidence would be brought to show that for humanity’s. sake the patient could not be refused admission. This was t ( hdl .casei of a man-made law. Defehdiant had 'been careful about admitting no more than one patient at a time. Her bookings showed this; hut isometimesl revert the law overruled by (the. ,course of nature. Dates oftentimes clashed on this account. Defendant had on occasion's gone to patients’ homes and attended them tso as to avoid a breach pf the Act Only one such prosecution had previously come . before the Court that was in Duneidn recently when the Bench: took a lenient view of the case and ordered a conviction without a fine '

.Mr® Fix was called to give evidence bearing out the facts as stated* When asked by ,Dr. Anderson to take the second patient .she could not reins© in, the special circumstances. The third; inmate! was not a patient, but . a boarder, who made her own bed and did her own washing. She had been 3 months in the house. Witness gave her her meals but no nursing attention. Witness, was previously wanned by the Department, but her explanation regarding cases having clashed was accepted. Dr. Anderson gave corroborative evidence. The second patient he asked Mrs Fix to admit was in a serious condition at 'tire time iiecessfliiating * an immediate operation for which he required assistance. It was undesirable that it should take place at the patient’s home. Witness suggested the public hospital, also the private; registered hospital, 'but the patient refused to go anywhere but to Mrs Fix. In. her serious state it would have been .most unwise to have . argued with her. For humanity’s sake Mis Fix admitted her. The Health Inspector arrived next day and: found the two patients in. The third' party referred to was only a boarder and the facts concerning here .were as stated by Mrs Fix. Bhe was in a run-down state and came to Queens’,town to get more sunshine. She came to witness as a patient and he asked Mrs Fix if she would take her as a boarder and ishe agreed to do to. Defendant had a maternity registrar lion, she was an excellent nurse, and her house was very clean and luadi been well-kept over Uie hi years lie had known it.

His Worship said an offence had been commitU;d, but lie would order a conviction only, And order defendant to pay Court costs 7s, solicitor 7* fee £3 3s.