MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Southland Times, Issue 18935, 23 September 1920, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

A sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held yesterday, before Mr G. Cruickshank, S.M. BY-LAW CASES. William Denham was convicted and fined £l, costs 7s, for riding a bicycle on the footpath ; Edith Hodgson, on a similar charge, was fined os; Angus McDonald, for leaving a car standing at night without lights, was fined 10s and costs 7s. MILITARY DEFAULTERS. For failing to attend drill in accordance with the Defence Act, J. S. Sellars was fined 10s, and costs 16s; Ivan C. Tilson was fined £2, costs 7s; and Patrick Forde was fined £l, costs 7s. Vincent Lavelle was convicted and discharged; Victor H. Patterson was fined £3 and costs 7s; George Butler was fined £2 and costs 7s; Christopher J. R. Bissett was fined £1 and costs 12s; Edward B. Croad was convicted and discharged; Bertie Aslett was fined £2 and costs 7s; 11. McLeod, fined £2, costs 14s; H. J. Munro, fined 10s, costs 7s; W. Duggan, convicted and discharged ; Arnold Wilks, convicted and discharged. William D. Rutland was charged with failing to attend drill. Mr Eustace Russell staled that Rutland had volunteered for active service and had been rejected. At his last medical examination lie was classified as unfit for any military service. After that he volunteered for home service, but was turned down. If the military’ insisted upon service from this man then something was wrong with the Act. Lieutenant Murphy, for (he Defence Department, stated that G.11.Q. orders were to the effect that any man rejected by the Expeditionary Force was still battle for Territorial service. Rutland had refused to attend drib and had given no explanation. Defendant was lined 10s and costs, 7s. LIQUOR REGULATIONS.

Lavington George Roopc and Samuel Lee Moore (Mr Russell) were charged with supplying Elisabeth Shaw with two gallons of liquor to be taken into a no-license area, without having received an order for the same, in accordance with the liquor regulations governing all liquor supplied to be consumed within a no-license area. No name of the consignee had been supplied to the Clerk of the Court* Senior-Sergeant Kccles, in outlining the case, stated that Mrs Shaw obtained the liquor from Moore at the brewery. He knew that Mrs Shaw’s hubsand was a prohibited person. The keg was supplied by Moore, who put in an order for the liquor in his own name. As Moore resided in a licensed district that order did not go through the hooks of the Court. Mr Russell for the defence pleaded guilty on behalf of Moore, who he stated had acted out of good nature to Mrs Shaw, to help her to pet. liquor without her husband’s knowledge. So far as Roope was concerned he had no knowledge of the offence until the police made inquiries. The older supplied by Moore was a fraudulent one, and lulled any suspicions Roope might have had with regard to the liquor supplied. He contended that Moore was alone responsible. The Magistrate said that if the offence was committed during office hours and in the furtherance of Roopo’s business the employer was equally responsible with the employee. However, he would look up some cases and deliver judgment at a future date. MAINTENANCE OF CHILDREN.

James Gref:;:: was charged with failing to support- his seven children at present in an industrial school. After hearing evidence which indicated that Gregg was making an endeavour to get a home together again, ilia Worship adjourned the case for two months. NEGLIGENT DRIVING. 11. Frickleton (Mr Reed • was charged with driving a car in a negligent manner on the evening of August 1). George McCurdy, tramway motorman, said that while on the Mary street loop he saw a car pass at a. speed of 12 miles per hour. A child was standing in the centre of the road, and the car struck the child and knocked her down, ijie car passing over her and pulling up about fifteen yards further on. lie was of the opinion that the motor car was passing the (rain car at a dangerous speed. To Mr Reed: The driver of the motor came along Yarrow street towards the Mary street loop. A. .1. McGregor, a passenger on the outgoing car, st-aP-d that he noticed the motor drive between the car standing on the loop 1 and the footpath. He was of the opinion thiit the motor went fully two chains before pulling up.

To Air Reed : Tin' driver of th" motor could not sec the child while the cars were passing.

R. G. Findlay pave similar evidence. In reply to Mr Heed, he said he was of the opinion that the taxi-driver could have seen the child had he kept a pood look-out. Constable Thompson stated that he had investigated (he accident. The child had been badly bruised. He interviewed the defendant ami obtained a statement from him to the effect that he had been drinking that day. The wheel marks on the road did not bear out the statement of the accused that he had. swerved into the putter. The child had pone to meet the tram, expecting a chum to arrive and had darted in past the front of (he tram car and was knocked flown by the motor. Defendant, was convicted ami fined £lO, with costs £1 17s.