POLICE COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 16785, 13 July 1911, Page 2

POLICE COURT.

WEDNESDAY, 12th JULY. (Mr G. Cruickshank, S.M.) BY-LAW CASES. Hugh McKillop, for cycling on the footpath in Clyde street, was convicted and lined £1 and 7s costs. Vernon Shirley pleaded guilty to a charge of having driven two head of cattle through the town, contrary to the borough by-laws. Sergeant Simpson explained that Shirley said he did not know of the requirements of the by-law. The offence had taken place at half-past twelve in the day. and the by-law provided that cattle might be driven through the town only before six o’clock In the morning. Fine of 5/- with costs 7/- was imposed. UNSTAMPED SCALES. A retailer was charged with having used in his business a weighing machine that was not stamped, and on further Informations with having had unstamped weights in his possession. Defendant said that the charges which had been laid were the first knowledge he had had that the machine and weights required to be stamped. Sergeant Simpson explained that the Information were laid under sec. 51 the Weights and Measures Act. C*. 24th Juno Constable Packer, who was the Inspector of Weights and Measures in this district, visited defendant’s shop and found the scales and weights in a state of bad repair.’ The constable asked that the scales and weights should be sent to be tested and defendant’s assistant had promised to send them on the following Monday as they would be very busy on the Saturday and would not be able to spare the scales. On 28 th June the constable again called when (the defendant being again out) the assistant explained that they had been very busy In the shop and had not been able to send the scales and weights to be tested. The constable then took possession of the scales and weights. The defendant told the Court that in years in which he had been in business he had no knowledge of an Inspector of Weights and Measures ever having been In his shop before. He did not know that it was necessary to have his scales and weights stamped. His assistant had not understood that there was a definite Instruction to have the scales and weights taken along to be tested. He 'had never had a complaint about light weight. The sergeant mentioned that it was the duty of a person who used scales and weights to see that they were in order. Defendant was convicted and fined £l, with 7s costs, on the first Information, and was convicted and discharged with lespect to the others. THE DRUNKARDS. Three first offenders —legal first offenders Inasmuch as there had been no convictions recorded against them within the previous six months —were each convicted and fined £1 and 7s costs for drunkenness at East Road. They had all been members of the same keg party.' One of them pleaded not guilty and was defended by Mr Eric Russell, who, after evidence had been given by Constable Packer stated the question ■was merely one of degree. His client might have been a little unsteady, but was going home quietly when the constable arrested him. Defendant, however, when put Into the witness box, said that he “was not very drunk." Duncan McEwan was charged with having been drunk and disorderly in a railway carriage between Bush Siding and Walmahaka on 17 th June.—Mr Haggitt appeared for the accused (who pleaded guilty), and explained that his client had been Into town to have some teeth extracted, cocaine being used by the dentist as an anaesthetic. Accused had some whisky after the operation and had some more in the train. He admitted that he got drunk, but in the circumstances thought that the Court might treat the case leniently. McEwan was not a man who gave way to drink and was not used to whisky.—Sergeant Simpson said that the facts of the case were rather bad. The accused had become so violent Ih the carriage that two of the passengers had to sit on. him. He had also used bad language. When he recovered he had apologised to the authorities. —A fine of £3, with £1 5s costs, was Imposed. ALLEGED VAGABONDS. Joseph McDermott, James Woodford, and George Turnbull were charged with being rogues and vagabonds, having been found by night without lawful excuse on the lighter Oreti lying at the Invercargill wharf. Mr Eustace Russell appeared for Woodford. All three men pleaded not guilty and the cases were taken together. Sergeant Simpson conducted the prosecution. Arthur Cook, owner of the lighter Oreti, stated in evidence that on the Saturday night mentioned in the information he had gone down to the wharf and had heard singing on the lighter. He found the accused there and they had refused to leave. His dinghy was alongside the lighter and lie went away to get another boat to cross over, and during the time he was absent they came ashore. They said that they had gone to the boat to see a friend, and had taken a keg of beer which they had drunk. "Witness told them not to come back and they went home. Next morning he had missed a clock from the lighter, and his man Campbell had Informed the party that they would have to replace it. To Mr Russell: One could walk on board the lighter when the.tide was out, but the accused had gone aboard in the dingy. The lighter was covered over with canvas. Mr Russell submitted that there was no case to answer. It was clear that these three men, with Campbell, who worked on the lighter and slept there at nights, had arranged early on Saturday evening to get some beer. They had takm some down to the lighter for Campbell, but Campbell did not turn up while they were there. The men, had not gone down to the lighter for an illegal purpose. James Woodford gave evidence to the effect that he had come to Invercargill fr»m Green Island with the intention of getting work on the tramway construction. He found on arrival that the work would not start for a fortnight longer. He had taken a job on the lighter, but in the meantime had found a more congenial billet as a driver for Mr Waterston. He had been used to working among horses. On the Tuesday following the Saturday mentioned in the information he and Campbell and Cook and another had met together on the lighter and had consumed two gallons of beer. Colin Campbell stated in evidence that be had taken the job on the lighter; that Woodford had vacated to work horses for Mr Waterston. During the three weeks he had worked for Cook he had slept on the lighter every night except two. One of the nights on which ho had slept ashore was the Saturday nig!-*- on which he had arranged with his mtes to join them in a keg party on the lighter. He had been detained by business in town. The case was dismissed. RESISTING THE POLICE. A. Morrison was charged with having on June 16, resisted Constable McDonough in the execution of his duty. Sergeant Simpson said that on the date named Constable McDonough, when arresting James Young, was obstructed by defendant. Constable McDonough said that while he was arresting Young the defendant urged Young to resist his arrest and placed his hand on witness’s shoulder with the Intention of obstructing him j- thv execution of his duty. " Defendant said that he had asked the constable to let him take ills mate home. He might have put his hand on the constable’s shoulder, but ho had no Intention of resisting or of inciting resistance. Defendant was fined £2, with costs 9s, one month being allowed in which to pay. A LIQUOR CASE. Archibald Muir, for whom Mr Eric Russell appeared, was cii urged with having exposed liquor for sale and with having, in his possession, liquor for Bale. Inspector O’Donovan, who conducted the case for the police, said that the charge arose out of ■ drinking in the park on April 22 last. The Inspector then went on to quote, exhaustively, from sections in the Licensing Act bearing on the matter and from cases In which the same issues were involved. These sections of the Act clearly showed, the Inspector said, that where liquor was found in fairly large quantities In a person’s possession the onus

was thrown upon that person to prove conclusively that it was not intended for sale. If a satisfactory explanation was not forthcoming then a conviction must be recorded. The facts of this case ■were that Muir, a single man, lining in Mary street had on April obtalned four gallons of beer from IVhittingham’s brewery. This beer bad been consumed by defendant and his companions. Later on the same day, Muir aguin visited the brewery and brought away 18 gallons of beer which also had been consumed by defendant and his chums. Possibly It might be contended that the liquor was subscribed for by "tarpaulin muster” or that defendant gave tile beer away gratuitously. Nevertheless, the onus of proof lay on defendant to show that lie had not sold the beer. If that proof were not given to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, then the Act clearly held that a conviction must be recorded. The Inspector asked His Worship to give the strongest interpretation to these provisions in older that keg-parties might be suppressed. James Fraser, foreman at Whittingham’s brewery, said he had known defendant nearly five years. The defendant came on the date in question, first in the forenoon, when he took away four gallons of beer after complying with the provisions In the way of an order. In the evening of the same day he returned to the brewery with an order for ten gallons of beer, but as no ten gallon kegs were in stock defendant took away an eighteen gallon keg. Sergeant Simpson said that he interviewed defendant on May 7 regarding the liquor purchased. Defendant declined to make any statement, but in the course of conversation defendant said that he had purchased an 18 gallon keg, taken it to the Park In a cart, and, with several others, had started to consume it. When he left at 12 o'clock some of the beer still remained. The night was wet and the carousal took place in'one of the pens. There had been no dlsturbaance, so defendant said. The four gallon keg, defendant said, bad been consumed earlier in the day in the Western reserve. To Mr Russell: Witness had no , suspicion that defendant had offered any liquor for sale. Mr Russell said that the circumstances were entirely different from those in which liquor was kept in premises. Defendant had not lost one day’s work during the last 18 months. Defendant was, on the date named, working on the Western reserve, and the first keg had been consumed by him and his mates. In the evening the 18 gallon keg was taken to the Park, and defendant left the Park some hours afterwards, leaving the keg in possession of others who were consuming its contents. The police made no suggestion that defendant had sold or offered liquor for sale. The charge was based purely on a statutory presumption. The case was merely brought forward by the police as an experiment to test how far-reaching were the provisions of the Act, with the laudable object of suppressing keg parties. Defendant had not attempted to sell the liquor. Archibald Muir, the defendant, gave evidence in accordance with his counsel’s statement. He had not wanted to buy IS gallons, but took so large a keg because the brewery had net a tengallon keg. He had never sold liquor, and had never been in a sly-grog shop in his life. It was usual to buy kegs and to drink tlmm in the reserves or "on the job.” He bought rue four-gal-lon for his mates in return for those bought by them su-l shared with him. He usually got a keg on a Saturday, His Worship sahl that tire case must be dismissed as there wasn't ;he slightest indication that defendant hod offered the liquor for sale. BIRTH REGISTRATION For neglecting to register vhe birth of a child within tire prescribed time, Thomas Burke Crowe was fined one shilling with seven shillings costs.