MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume L, Issue 175, 23 October 1917, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

(Befo-e Messrs W. Lock and T. Pettit, Justices.) . CIVIL CASESAt the Magistrate's Court to-day, judgment for plaintiff by default was jliveri in the following cases: —Jame* Itemnauit (.Mr E. B. Moore) v. Harry .Honor* cairn £4, costs 1 10s; S. Y. Wearing (Mr W. V. Rout) v. George Whiting, claim £2 12s 4d, costs 10s. In the case Ole Gausel v. Tasker and [Levien (Mr E B. Moore) there "was no appearance oi plaintiff, and defendants were allowed 10s 6d solicitors fee.

EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT. William Bradley pleaded guilty to driving a motor car across the iotersection of Trafalgar and (Bridge streets at a speed exceeding six miles an hour. (Defendant said that while admitting travelling at snore than six miles, his pace would not be more than eight miles. At six miles an hour a car would be out of control. His was a noisy car. and people. would think dt was travelling faster than it really was. Constable McGregor estimated defendant's speed at from 12 to 15 miles, •Constable Hardy at at least 12 miles. Mr Lock said six miles was an absurd .pace, but that was the law 0D» fendant would be fined 10s, with 7* costs. SELLING CIGARETTES TO BOYS. Jteith W. Stallard was charged with, on 21st September, selling cigarettes to Stanley Busch, a youth under 15 years of age. Defendant pleaded not guilty, an, was defended my Mr J. P. Hayes. Stanley 'Busch, schoolboy, gave evidence thai he bought four packets of cigarettes at defendant's shop on the Friday before Dominion Day, paying 2s 6d for them. Witness recognised defendant as the man who served him. The cigarettes were for lan Hamilton, who was younger than witness. Cross-examined: He got 2d change. Lan 'Hamilton gave ,hi-n the 2s 6d. J.i had not bought cigarettes before. Witness -was 14£ years of age now. Constable McGregor said h© accompanied Busch to defendant's shop. Busch recognised defendant as the man who served, him. {Defendant, in evidence, said he had been in business as a tobacconist for about six years, and knew it was an offence to supply cigarettes to a hoy tun der 16. He sold, on an average 40 to 50 packets of cigarettes daily., He knew Busch and was quite certain that he did not sell him iour packets of cigar-ettes-—he had never sold four packets- of cigarettes to any boy. Cross-examined: He could (not remember selling any cigarettes to Busch at any time. No boys ever came into the shop for cigarettes. Mr Haves contended that it was oath acaiast oath, and the Bench in those circumstances should not convict." t Sergt. ißarrett said he could obtain tho evidence of Hamilton if the ißench wanted it. The Bench said, 'Hamilton's, evidence should be heard, and adjourned the case tor a short time. Lan Hamilton, aged 12, said he gave ißusch 2s 6d to buy cigarettes. Busch | gave him four or five packets of cigarettes. Some of the boys at the camp were sick. He was not sick, but he •was "not feeling too good." Cross-examined: He and his brother found the money. Inez Frank was charged with having on September 21st sold cigarettes to V. Liddicoat and. H. Brundell; and on October 6th to V. Liddicoat; all under 15 years of age. Defendant pleaded not guilty, and was defended by 'Mr Hayes. Herbert Brundell said ho was a schoolboy 13 years of age. He remembered the Friday before rf>ominion Day. That dav he went into Mr Baiting's shop io Hardy street after school and bought four packets of cigarettes. Defendant supplied him with they cigarettes. She ney Boyes was with him. ■Cross-examined: He had never bought cigarettes at the shop before. He smoked some of the cigarettes. He had only once bought cigarettes. ' The Bench asked witoess if he knew of many boys wno smoked. • . Witness said he did not. Stanley Boyes, agea' 13, said he went into »Mr Baiting's shop'' with Brundell, who bought about four packets of cigarettes, defendant serving him. ■ Constable McGfegor said he interviewed defendant, who said she could < not remember serving (Brundell with cigarettes, and that she would not serve boys mnder 15. ' . Mr Hayes submitted. l a legal .point that it .was not defendant who solid the cigarettes, but her employer. 'The Bench .subsequently overruled the point." , Defendant stated that she was emploved by Mr Baiting. A .good many cigarettes were sold at the shop. She had instructions from Mr Baiting not to sell cigarettes to boys under 16. Mi Baiting thought that'was the age specified in the Act. When boys came in and asked for cigarettes she asked them if they were 16; and if "they said they were not 16 she refused to' serve jthem: She had often refused to sell to boys. She was certain she had. never sold four •packets of cigarettes' to any boy. ,tohe could not remember selling any cigarettes to (Brundell. _ , Valentine Liddicoat; aged ".stated, that he 'remembered going: to 'Baiting's shop the Friday before Dominion Dav. He bought a packet of cigarettes, the defendant serving him. .. ' ■ Cross-examined: He had |previously bouo-ht cigarettes at the. shop; also since 21st 3 'September, f Defendant, he believed, served him. He took the cigarettes to a camp in the Maitai. There wore seven or eight boys at the camp. To iSergt. Barrett: Spate of the boys at -the camp were sick—he supposed through smoking cigarettes. This witness stated that hef-also purchased cigarettes from Mr Baiting's shop on October 6th, defendant serving him. Defendant said she could not remember selling cigarettes to Liddicoat on October 6tfc ' . ut The ißench, in convicting the defendant Stallard, said these were the first cases, and leniency would be shown. Mr Lock said many people thought cigarette-smoking by children should.be stomoed. -Defendant would; be ss, wiT7s costs. The Bench also held that the charges against the second defendant were proved, and fined her 5s on each of the three charges, with 7s costs on each charge. ■ Mr Pettit said he knew of his own knowledge that there was a great deal of cigarette smoking amongst boys under 12 The cases should be taken as a warning by tradespeople. If catees came before him again he would feel inclined to impose a very heavy fine. During the hearing of the cases Mr Hayes commented on the period that had elapsed since the date of' the offences alleged and the hearing of the charges. The delay, he emphasised placed the defendants at a disadvantage, as they could not be expected to remember what customers they served, a month ago.