IN THE COURTS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 92, 18 April 1912, Page 5

IN THE COURTS.

(Ptr Press Association.)

Piiliiatua, April 17

Four men pleaded guilty to being found ,mi the premises of the Pofe'b Office Hotel at Pahiatua on March ■l7th, a Sunday, during prohibited hours, and were lined os each and ■Oasts Michael Fitzgerald, the licensee, was charged with, liquor for sale on the same ‘occasion. The defendant said thi.it the four ,rnen in question came ‘to his-hoted about 9 p.m. ou Sunday, March 17th, and asked for drinks. He replied that he could not serve them, *mt offered to sli'cnt, and invited them to the bar, closing the door behind him. Ho ■opened the door ivhen 'k!he police knocked. There was no suggestion' of any money being paid for the drinks, and lie had ( uo intention whatever 'Of breaking the lajw. Mr 1 N. It. Russell, counsel .for tl<ifeuda.nt, said that there was, an idea prevalent amongst .publicans that they could entertain their friends on Sunday. Counsel quoted <li ruling ( of the Supremo Court Judges in a somewhat similar case where a decision had been given in favour of the licensee. The Magistrate, Mr L. G. Reid, S.M., reserved Ins decision. , Eight shopkeepers were prosecuted in the Pahiatua Police Court to-day for ‘failing to close their Chop's at 6 p.m. on 1 Thursday, April 4th, the day before Good Friday. The defendants pleaded guilty, 'sjtaltiing that they (had 'continued business until 9 p.m. on Thursday, in order ho close their shops on Saturday, which they did, thereby giving their employees the full 'benefit ,pf, the Easter 'holidays. The Inspector of Factories explained that there Was some feeling in the matter, as tlie defendants did not constitute of the shopkeepers of Pahialtua. They .plainly commijtted a breach ‘of the Act. .They could only have continued business legally 'on Thursday evening by presenting a .requisition to the Mayor, signed by a majority. The case was brought as a. lesson. Counsel For defendants said that 'they had done the right tilling in the wrong 'way. The Magistrate ordered a conviction In each case, ordering the defendants to pay costs at the Police Courts 4 A TRAMWAY CASE. s . Wellington, April ~17. The CTourt of Appeal, after the luncheon adjournment, ‘ commenced the hearing of .the ha.se of King v.‘ the Auckland Electric Tramway Company, Ltd., ,an appeal from the judgment of'Mr Justice Edwards'in nonsuiting appellant in an action against the respondent company for negligence. The appellant, 'Mrs King, is a nurse residing 'with her husband, the other appellant, in Auckland. On May" 30th, 1911, the appellant, Mrt King, was crossing respondent's tramline at or near an intersection of the new North Read with .Rose Street, in (the Eden Terrace Road district, when ,sho was run over .by 'a tram-dar. Appellants allege negligence in the management of the tram-car, and claim £SOO damages in respect thereof. At this trial in Auckland, in November last, Mr Justice Edwards, on the motion of cbunsel for the defendant, withdrew the case from the jury arid non-suited the plaintiffs, on the ground that there, was. no evidence of negligence to go. to the jury. Mr R. H. Richmond, of'Auckland, appears for the appellants; and Mr J. R. Reed, of Auckland, appears for the respondent company. ' Mr Richmond stated that the matters to be relied on as constituting nOgligoncle were the excessive speed of the tram-car, *fihe failure of thhse in charge of the ear to keep a look-out, awl the failure to sound a warning. He then proceeded to anaylso the evidence. Argument had not concluded when the Court rose.