S.M. COURT, COMBRIDGE

Waikato Independent, Volume XVI, Issue 1191, 6 August 1912, Page 5

S.M. COURT, COMBRIDGE

The following business was dealt with before Mr F. O’B Loughnan, S.M., to-day;

DAMAGING PROPERTY

Jim Stewart was charged on the information of the police with wilfully damaging a sign board, the property of Samuel Brown. Ho pleaded guilty and was convicted and fined 5s and costs 7s. .

LIQUOR AND PROHIBITED PERSON

Charles Craig pleaded guilty to a charge of supplying a prohibited person with liquor. Constable McCarthy said it was difficult to enforce orders when men like accused were about. The Magistrate said the offence was a serious one, and imposed a fine of £3 and costs 19s. MILITARY SERVICE C. Nicholls was charged with failing to render personal service under the Defence Act. He pleaded exemption . on the ground of his religious belief, i saying he was a Presbyterian, and did not believe in taking up arms. The Magistrate said there was plenty of Scriptural authority for taking up arras. All the good Presbyterians that he knew of did not’object to serve their country. He did not consider the objection before him constituted a religious belief. A letter written by Captain Burgess to the Rev. W. J. Cow on the matter was put’ in as evidence, in which Nicholls was made an offer to serve i in the ambulance corps. Questioned by the Magistrate, accused said he was one of those who would net take up arms even if his mother was assaulted. The Magistrate in inflicting a fine of £2 and costs 7s, remarked that the defendant was no credit to to the Dominion andshonld be drummed out of the country. A. E. Bartlett pleaded guilty to a similar charge, but unlike the previous’witness said he had nothing to say, and was fined £2 and costs 17s. , BREACH OF RABBIT ACT v Wenz Scholium was charged on the information of Inspector Clapcott that being the owner of certain private lands in West Taupo County he had to destroy rabbits, am} had, also failed to promote the destruction of such rabbits. Defendant said the property contained 67,000 acres, of which he was a part owner. Defendant pleaded guilty to the charge so far as the rabbits were concerned, but said the work of exterminating them had now been puffin hand. The Inspector gave evidence in support of the charge, saying several notices had failed to move Mr Scholium to action. Defendant said tha rabbits had once been exterminated on the property, and the owners intended dealing with the pest gradually. The property was not so badly infested as the inspector wished the Court to believe. He guaranteed to have the trappers at work within a few weeks. A fine of £5 an costS 7s was imposed. FAILING TO KEEP WAGES BOOK John Ferguson, wheelwright and coachbuilder, was charged with failing to keep his wages book in the form prescribed byjthe Act. Mr Ferguson produced his book, which was correctly ruled up, but the details were incomplete. Mr Johns, departmental inspector, advanced reasons why wages books should show fully on the face of them, pll the facts and figures required. A second book was produced, which showed even 'fuller details than required by the Act, but it was not in the prescribed form. * A fine of £2 and costs 12s was inflicted. . I BREACH OP SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT. Wm. Brocklesby, butcher, for whom Mr Lewis appeared, was charged that he employed one of his men more’ than 5 hours continuously without an intervaj.for a meal. The Inspector said complaints had been received that the butchers of Cambridge'were in the habit of employing their men longer than the Act allowed, and this case was brought to show that they could not continue to do so. Fined £1 and costs 12s.

REGISTRY OFFICE BOOK

E. R. Day was charged with failing to keep engagement books in the form prescribed in the schedule. The Insnector said it had been Mr Day’s practice to ring up people on the telephone, asking if they required servants, and when servants were secured, to charge a fee to both parties. It quite right to charge both mispress and servant a fee, provided application was made In writing or in person by either or both of the parties, but ringing up on the telephone and asking clients re their requirements was pot strictly legal. Failure to keep . the books in the correct form was an offence. Fined ill and costs 12a, [Court Still proceeding]