CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19695, 23 January 1926, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

Friday, January 22. (Before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) A YOUTHFUL PRANK. Two youths, one 16 years of age, and the other slightly older, were charged with having caused damage to the extent, of Jos to a scat, the property of the Brighton Domain Board.—Mr A. C. Hanlon, who appeared for accused, said that the case was a trivial one, and the offence could he characterised as boyish mischief. The boys had merely carved their initials on the seats.—The Magistrate stated that the case was one in which a thrashing administered to the lads would have served better than a prosecution. He would treat them as juveniles, and dismiss the case on the understanding that the parents of the boys undertook to make good the damage to the seat. OFFENSIVE BEHAVIOUR. Geo. Smith was charged with having, on November 21, 1925, behaved on a railway train in a manner offensive to his fellowpassengers.—Defendant, who was represented by Mr A. C. Hanlon, pleaded guilty.—Senior-sergeant Quartermain stated that Smith on the day in question was a passenger by the 6.15 p.m, train to Seacliff. He was under the influence of liquor, and forced his attentions on a young woman, being so insistent that she had to appeal to the guard. —Mr Hanlon admtited that the facts were as stated, but that Smith, who was a man of excellent character, and who occupied the position of head storekeeper at Seacliff Mental Hospital, was under the influence of liquor and unaccountable for his actions. Smith knew the woman by sight, ans although he had undoubtedly spoken to her, he had not interfered with her in any way or spoken in any improper manner. Defendant was a man well known and respected in Seacliff, and the probation officer would testify to the fact that he had received many unsolicited tcstimonails regarding the excellence of Smith’s character. Counsel submitted that whilst accused had undoubtedly been foolish, leniency might be extended on the ground that he was already punished severely, and would certainly lose his position if a conviction were entered against him—Helen Allen stated that she was a school teacher at Seacliff, and on the night in question she was travelling on the fa.lo train to Seacliff. Shortly after the tram left Waitati Smith came through the carriage in which she was seated, and asked her to come into his carriage and speak to him. Witness replied that she did not know him, and did not wish to speak to him—To Mr Hanlon; She knew Smith only by sight, but did not know where he worked.—Smith then went to another carriage, but later came back and repeated his request. When the guard came through she appealed to him, and on accused again attempting to speak to her, the pard removed her to another carriage. Smith had not interfered with her in any way, nor had he used bad language—His Worship said that Miss Allen’s evidence showed that Smith had undoubtedly annoyed her, and the only assumption was that he must have been under the influence of liquor. In view of the probation officer’s good report he wished it were possible not to convict, but this course would not be justifiable Looking at the facts, it would be seen that accused was already very severely punished He would therefore be convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called on any time within 12 months. He would also be fined 28s, the amount of the costS- MOTOR CASES. IDavid Young was fined 5s and costs (7s) for leaving a motor car without it being properly lighted. S P Luk" 1 , who was represented by Mr •vard.’was charged with leaving a mopr car unattended for more than la minutes. Senior-sergeant Quartermain read the constable’s report, which stated tdiat he had been told that a drunken man had left the car The man (accused) was in a drunken condition when he came back, and the constable had ordered him to get a -nan to take the car back to a garage.—Mr Ward said the statement was correct so far as defendant being drunk when he returned was concerned, but he was not in that condition before that It was Christmas time, and he had gone away at the invitation of a friend to have a drink. He very seldom indulged in drink, and was easily affected by bquor. He had three drinks. He ha f read a creed to get someone to take tnJf r away He was from Christchurch, and did not know the streets as other people did. He had arranged with a taxi driver to take the oar away. Mi Bundle said ho would take into consideration that defendant was not actually diiynik at the time, though he did no u know that he was justified in doing so. Defendant would he fined £5 and costs, and be. prohibited from driving to the exp.ration of his existing license, and for six months thereafter. If he had been driving while in that state he would have been sent to

5 Hugh Millar Kirkland admitted having driven a motor cycle on Brighton beach without having a license, and was fined 20s and costs (7s). ALLEGED NEGLIGENT DRIVING. William Wishart M'Daughlin was charged with having on January 13 negligently driven a motor car in Prince Albert road. \j r £ § Irwin apjpeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty.—Alexander Steel, electric welder, in the employ of the Glty Corporation, said he was sitting on a seat near the St. Kilda band rotunda on the roadside on January 13, watching the scouts who were waiting for the tram. The last of the boys were drawn up in front of the door of the hotel. A motor oar was coming from along Tahuna way and drew, up on the left hand side of the car rail near the hotel. The driver was very reckless in not sounding his horn. He ran into the ranks of the boys and half-a-dozen of tnom had to scatter.—To Mr Irwin; Defendant should have drawn up before he did. — Lionel Sinclair Abbott, assistant scoutmaster, described the position of the scouts when the car approached. Defendant was going between 15 and 20 miles an hour just before coming to the hotel, and reduced to six or eight miles an hour. That was the speed when he came upon the boys, who had to go one way or the other to get out of his road. Defendant had said that he had as much right to the road as anyone else, and had a right to draw up in front of his own hotel. He (witness) was told by some of those about not to be too officious, and was asked to whom he was responsible for the safety of the boys. The driver of the car was perfectly sober.—Mr Bundle, addressing witness, reminded him that he had not the exclusive right of the road. —The Seniorsergeant said that a couple of boys belonging to the troop could give evidence.—Mr Irwin said ho proposed to bring witnesses from Invercargill and Gore, who were in the oar at the time, if necessary.—Defendant said that he pulled up before he readied these boys. Ho (Mr Irwin) was prepared to prove that defendant pulled up before he reached the boys.—Mr Bundle said he thought it would be a waste of time calling on defendant to give evidence in the case. There was no suggestion that he had been driving at a high speed; in fact, ho was pulling up. It was the duty of the driver of any vehicle to give way in such a case. Ho (Mr Bundle) thought the scoutmaster had slightly magnified the matter. He could only say that it was a case where courtesy had not been extended to the scouts, but negligence had not been proved,—Mr Irwin again mentioned that there were three witnesses from the south who could give evidence, and under the circumstances Mr Bundle adjourned the case to Monday. UNSTAMPED MEASURE. James Bell, a fish hawker, was charged with having had in 5 his possession, on December 29, 1925, an unstamped 251 b pocket balance. —Defendant said that he had taken the balance over with the rest of the outfit when ho bought it. Ho sold soles, mostly, and did not require the balance, which ho had never used. Ho had boe.n warned by the inspector not to use the balance, but had not been told not to carry it. —George Henry Lightfoot (Inspector of Weights and Measures) stated that on the day in question defendant had the balance on his cart. —The magistrate accepted Bell’s statement that he was unaware that ho was committing an offence by having the balance in his possession. Defendant would be fined 10s, and costs (7s). STOREKEEPER’S BREACH. Benjamin Stephen Power was proceeded against for having failed to close his shop at 12.30 on Saturday, December 19, 1025, and with having delivered goods after that hour —George Henry Lightfoot (Inspector of Factories) stated that this was not an isolated case, and that several complaints had been received in regard to defendant delivering goods after hours. There wore several other storekeepers in the district, and this procedure was not fair to them. Power himself, over the’ telephone, had admitted that this was not an isolated case. —Questioned by the magistrate, defendant stated that he had had an extra busy week and that pressure of business was responsible for his defection.—The bench remarked that the breach could not bo characterised os » nominal one, and fined defendant 40s, and costs (7s j. SETTLING LIQUOR AFTER HOURS. Jwines Cullen, licensee of the SWJwom i wan changed with bafnujk

January 7 and 8, unlawfully opened his promises for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours.—Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared for defendant, who pleaded not gnulty. Alexander M'Donald, for whom Mr Hanlon also appeared, pleaded guilty to supplying liquor during prohibited hours.—-Sontor-sorgeant Quartermain outlined the facts ot the case. —Evidence was given by Constable Moore in accordance with the senior-ser-geant’s statement, and in cross-examination he admitted that he had boon put into plain clothes to deceive r.iio publican. He received his instructions before be left the station as to what he was to do.- -Sergeant Dunlop in his evidence said ho aci.oraiia.uiod the constable to the Oval. Ho searched the constable before leaving tho station and ho had 12s 2d. Constable Moore went into the telephone box at the Oval, anj a tew minutes later went to the right-of-way leading up-past the Southern Hotel. Wimcss saw a man com© from tho front or Uw hotel and go up the right-of-way. bn© constable and a man came out together, the man going towards the entrance to the hotel and the constable coming back to the Oval. Witness spoke to M'Donald, in consequence of what he was told, and asked him if ho had seen the constable thr' night, and he replied that he had nevar seen him before and had sold no beer to him. Witness went to the hotel and knocked at the private entrance, and Cullen came. Witness told him he wanted to speak to him, and he came out. Witnern told him of the purchase of the beer, and he made no reply. Later, when proceeding along the road witness searched the constable, and he then had 9s Id. The man who had come out of the hotel returned to it ty the mafn entrance. Two men left the hotel afterwards, and on getting closer to them witness found that one of thorn was M'Donald. The right-of-way was common to the hotel and a motor garage, and anyone could get into the back of the hotel Mr Hanlon: When witness searched the constable he had some notes which he took from him and loft him 12s 2d. in© clothes he wore-- were tho same as thooe : worn afterwards. ■ „ , , , , Mr Hanlon said that M'Donald had pleaded guilty to selling liquor to the con- ( . stable, and the licensee denied that he i had sold any liquor, and he (Mr Hanlon) i submitted that there was no evidence what- | ever to prove that the licensee had, in foot, i sold, or taken any part in the selling of ■ liquor, to the constable. He admitted I that M'Donald from time to time was engaged .as a paid servant selling liquor in Cullen’s bar to persons who applied for liquor there, and he would go so far as to admit that if he were to supply liquor at any time to, say, a. drunken man, ytom i the bar that the master would be responsible, because the servant would be acting . within the scope of his authority in such' ’ a case. But he contended that for a man, I who, was barman, to take liquor from the t hotel and sell it outside to some person, , did not make a master responsible. The i master could not be held responsible for [ the action of a servant in taking liquor from his hotel and selling it elsewhere. [ This liquor was not sold on licensed pro- - raises. It was the duty of the pohee to prove that, or that the promises ' were kept open for the sale of liquor- [ Alex M'Donald, cross-examined by Mr Hanlon, stated that he was the father-in-law of the licensee, and at times assisted in the ’ bar. He recollected selling liquor on tho ; night of January 7. On that night he was ' giving two of the boarders a drink in the j bar. As he cam© out of the bar, tho lele- , phone rang, and on answering it he' had “ the conversation mentioned with the con- ' stable. He got the liquor and went out into the rignt of way and gave it to tile man. receiving three shillings in payment. This money fie put in the till till later in the; 5 evening. On going along Anderson’s Bay 1 road laterghe was challenged by Sergeant Dunlop with having sold liquor which he - denied.—To Senior-sergeant Quartermain: " He had a little over £IOOO invested in the hotel. He had not previously done business through the telephone.—James CulloD stated 1 that he was licensee of the Southern Hotel, a On the night in question he was in his i room changing when M'Donald came up for tho keys, saying that he wished to J give two of the boarders a drink. About 1 9.5 p.m. he was coming downstairs, and s was met by M'Donald, who returned tho s keys. Ho had not been downstairs in tho s meantime, and know nothing of any beer 3 having 'been sold; M'Donald had “received 1 no authorisation to sell beer to outsiders. • 0 To Senior-sergeant Quartermain. —He had 1 put £IOOO into the business, and his father- ■. m-law a little more than that. He always f kept the keys of the bar himself as ho e was licensee of the hotel. —The magistrate reserved his decision to allow mm to cons sider the responsibility of the licensee in ' these circumstances.