MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLVI, Issue XLVI, 26 June 1911, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr. J> §•, Evaiis, S.^l.)

SUNDAY TRADING

At the Magistrate's Court to-day, George White, proprietor of the Tasmanian Tea Rooms, Bridge-street, was charged on the information of the police, with unlawfully keeping Jiis premises open on Sunday, June llith. The defendant, who pleaded guiiity, was represented) by M,r. jc". B. AtKiiiscfn. Sergt; AltlllaJiy fita-ted that the iriformatron Was laid Uttdel* Set 1 . 17 of the Police Offences Act, the offence being keeping open for sale. Defendant, •ran a .restaurarlt and a shop, in which coil beet i-onery, cigarettes and othei things were sold. On Sunday, June 11. the dc.or of the shop was wide open, and Constable Tow.nsend saw two boys come out with two parcels of lollies which had been bought from the defendant. According <tjoi the Act, it was .weceesary to have, a partition or a separate entaiance or the door cl.c<sed. where a. restaurant was run in conjunction with another business. Mr. Atkinson said that the defendant Was entitled to keep his r-""tau;rant. open on Sundays—it was .not unlawful to do iso as the information alleged. There w.a.s onlv one door to the shop. The Slagistrate remarked that- tinder the section it appeared) as if a restaurant could not be kept open.—there was no exemption in respect of restaurants. •Mr. Atkinson said that the Shops and Office and the Police 'Offences Acts were in conflict.

The Magistrate said that it was an offence to sell goods out of a ishop. S'hops must be kept closed! from trade c ; n. Sundays, and where two businesses wow conducted there must be a distinct-ion, or there would; be "an unfair advantage to some trad-ens, and it would he unfair competition. , Defendant was lined 5s with 9s. costs. PROHIBITION ORDER. ' A prohibition order was granted after hearing evidence. PROHIBITED PERSONS AND THEIR SUPPLIES. \

A CASE DISMISSED

Francis Edgar Hounaell was chr.rged with (procuring liquor on or about 19th Alay during the currency of a .prohibition order. •

Air. Atkinson/ appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Air. Atkinson asked that the in.fonmation he made more specific—not "on or about 19th Ala v." They (must know what they had to meet. The Afagistrate said that if the defendant 'was taker* by surprise he was entitled to an adjournment; but the infer mart, ion was in. order.

■Sergt. Mullany said 1 that as tbe result ■of » previous prosecution it bad! transspiredl that the defendant was drinking, with others, about 19th May. Harold Gt&orge Muncaster stated' that ■lie thought that he and defendant had ■had liquor since witness' prohibition order wsis i<i* force. He •could not say when.- but it was about three wedkis before June 9th. It was behind Gieo. Sharland's shqp. He .htad a.n _ idiea that one Geo. Hay was there. Witness and defendant had beer. He cou'Jd. not say Wiho else was there, nor who brought the liquor—he thought it wais Hay. Did not remember defndaint and himself "having liquor at White's Tasmamian tea rooms. Could not remember meeting Hay and 'Houneel'l behind Sharland's shejp during tbe past three weeks. Could not remember having had beer for supper in White' restaurant. . To Mr. Atkinson: He was almost sure Hounsell hadi 'beer behind Sharland's on or about the date mentioned. He had not thought about Hounsell 'being there uintil the Sergeant put a question to him in the box in a previous case. To the Magistrate: Hie was quite flare that HouinseKL and Hay were with him- when he had drink behind Sharland's.

Constable MacGregor stated that he had often, seen the defendant going to and coming f rom Sharland's fihop. To Mr. Atkinson: He was not a.war® that defendant boarded 1 with Shairland.

Francis Edgar Hounsell, the defendant., stated that his .prohibition order was issued on February 23rd- Since that date he had had no liquor with Muncaister behind Sharland's. He had boarded 'with S bar land for the past trwto years. He had hiis dinner at' SharLanid's shop and' sometimes tea; but slept at Sharlaind'e house. "

To Sergt. Mullany: He had never ©een Munioaister having liqiuor at Sharland's—with "Hay or any oik; e&e. He thought Muiixcasteir had made a mistake. On June 3rd Hay did not bring a muSniber of bottles to SharLand's back. yard when witness and Muncaster -were threre. H'e wara in the yard .on 3i>d' June painting a beat. Hay was in the yard that day, but brought no liquor. He had had no liquor :sinoe he was prohibited l —ho would «nvea.r 'that.

The Magistrate said that there was a flat contradiction of testimony. I,t was difficult to say. which side was telling Ithe truth. A conviction must -be certain as to date and circumstances, ainid it was quite impossible for him to say who was telling" the- truth, and - the information •therefore would be dismissed.

George Hay was charged with liaviing on or about May 19th 'procured 1 liquor fear t Harold G. Miuiracaster, knowing (the letter to be a prohibited person. Defendant pleaded net guilty, and —was defended by Mr. Atkinson. • Harold G. Mupcaster stated .that the defendant had procured liquor for him •itrid ; brought it to the back of White's restaurant. It would be three or four .weeks before the 9t'h May. Witnieiss ask'ed Hay to get the liquor, aind ga,ve him the money. _ ; To Mr. Atkinson: Hay wr.s only a casual acquaintance of his. He could not say whether Hay knew wiitoces was •prohibited. The defendant said that he had) not served Muncasteir with baser at any time. If was absolutely false that he had (supplied Munoaster with beer. To Sergt. Mullany: He l had' been in Muncaster's company about eighit times altogether. He had l beeni with M.uncaster at: the back of SharLand's shop. It was false that Muncaster .gave him money to get liquor. He .had l not taken liquor to SharLand's at any .time. He knew that .Muncaster was rpr.cihobited. Defendant saiid that he was at Sharland's shop on June 3rd, but took no liquor there. The Magistrate said that it was another case of contradiction. Muncaster had disclosed tne names only .umdte'r compulsion from the Court. He was satisfied that the defendant had supplied•' Mun> castier with liquor, but he would l wait unt.il (the afternoon to look up -authorities as to whether there was sufficient data en which to fix the date of swpiplying, and would! give liis decision, m the morning. A FISHERMEN'S SQUABBLE. Antonii-o Ercolanici wa.s charged. with hiaviing ion 15th June been l gui-jty of threatening behaviour leading to a breach of tine, peace. Defendant pleaded not guilty, 'and was defended l by Mr. J. P. Hayes. Sergt. Mullany stated that on ithe evening of June "15th the defendant and

a man name*! Orossi were figlibitrig a/t the 3?.c(rt, Constable Todikiiri. deposed to seeing the two men fighting. Defendant oompiained to him that two or men had assaulted him. Grosei told witness that on the previous evening defendant and his tw,o mates had waited- for him (Gross!) and assaulted 1 .him. He dftd .mot know who was the aggressor on the 15th.

To Air .Hay&s : Whetl he .arrived at the scene G.ross.i had his coat off, but the d)efeiidia,nt had his coat off..'Defendant Was a quiet. dwell t sort of fellow : i'n fact both the men Were, .and he vva.s sinnprrs-eid at the fig'ni. The d'efenda.nt and Peter Murray gave evidence for the defence, from which it was clear that the defendant was not the aggressor. Air. Murray said that the defendant was struck first. The information, was dismissed. Pliiiliip tlirossi was then 'similarly charged, and was defended by Air. Atkinson. Defend'ant jpl'eadled not guilty. Constable lonkin repeated his evidence of the previous case. Peter Alurray stated that he saw a .man named Neils-on strike Ercolano. He did not see Grossi strike Ecolanie. The dlefenidant .stated! that <rti June 14th he had been tripped tip by five of Erc'olano-% mates. Oil the 15t.h one of Eirco!' :tj s. n.i.;tcs threw a bottle at him, and he chased liim. He returned to where Ercolano was, when the later caught- him round tho "waist. The constable then appeared. It was not a fact that he and his mates, had; waited- for Ercolano. He did not strake Ercolano. :He had his coat on.

The Magistrate was satisfied, the defendant was the aggressor, and a fine of 40s, was imposed,, with costs 7s.