OTAUTAU S.M. COURT.

Western Star, 30 March 1920, Page 2

OTAUTAU S.M. COURT.

MONDAY, MARCH 29. (Before Mr G-. Cruiekshank, S.M.) Southland Acclimatisation Society (Mr Russell) v. Wm. Reed, and Robt. Harding charged with on 7th February, 1920, shooting and gaffing trout on the Waitati Stream' near Nightcaps.—o. J. Evans, ranger for the Society, said he accosted the accused who had in. their possession a rifle and a bag. He asked to- see what was in the bag, and it contained trout, four of which averaged about 41b. Two of the fish had 1 bullet marks, and the remainder seemed to have been gaffed.—Mr Russell said that he would frankly admit that the defendants had openly admitted the offence and gave the ranger no trouble. Convicted and fined) £7 10s. costs 26/eaoh.

Southland Acclimatisation Society (Mr Russell) v. Win. May, jnr., charged with on 16th February, unlawfullyshooting a wild duck out of season. Mr May, father of the boy, said that ho had always protected the ducks as far as was in his power. He let the boy have the rifle although he perhaps should not have done-so. The ranger should! halve come to him and told him as a. gentleman that the boy had been shooting the ducks, and h© would have taken steps to stop the shooting. —Fined £l, costs 7/-. Police v. J. Si Creegan, J. P. Creegan, and Thos. O’Dowd, charged with being found on licensed premises at Wrey’s Bush after closing hours. — Cheegan’s both wrote admitted the offence and! O’Dowd, for whoinj Mr Patrick appeared, pleaded hot guilty. —Sergt. Matheson prosecuted. —O’Dowd dismissed, Creegans fined £2, costs 7/- each. Police v. J. F. O'Conuor, licensee All Nations Hotel, Wrey’s Bush, charged with selling liquor after hours. —Constable Boyle visited the hotel, and found six men dtrinking at 9.10 p.m. on Ist March. He went into the room off the bar and saw the six men, one- of whom, Jno. Cireegau, senr., had received a tray with six glasses from someone in the bar, and was in the act df banding it round. When he (Constable Boyle) was seen the tray was put back in the bar.. He asked the men if they were boarders and they all -said “Yes” except Creegan. He asked OD'owd the number of his room, and) h© was not sure whether it mate 1 or 2. As far as the Constable knew O'Dowd lived within three hides of the hotel. O'Dowd said that he had attended the mission, and had just arrived at the hotel to engage a room when he met the other men. He had not been able to interview the licensee earlier. He stayed at the hotel for two days. He did not live at the farm within three miles o)f the hotel, but stayed with his relations sometimes.—Mr Hunter said that O’Connor had ,heeu an hotelkeeper for eleven years, and had a very good record. Four of the persons were boarders, and he may have been a. little careless as to the identity of the other two.—The Magistrate said that licensees should bring liquor on a tray ,in a room away from the bar, because opening the s’ide was committing an offence, as ibis was exposing liquor for sale. Constable Boyle said that he bad several complaints- with regard to after-hour trading at this hotel. —Convicted and fined £lO, costs 7/-. W. S. Hunter v. J. W. Phillips, default of maintenance of wife and child. Arrears amounting to £6 Gs had been paid into Court.—Ordered to pay £1 Is costs. —Civil Court.—

Lloyd v. Dickson, claim, £1 Is 6d.—• Judgment by default for (full amount, with 5/- costs. A. Dempster (Mr Macalister) V. C. Brazier (Mr Patrick), claim half cost of maintaining a race horse for five months, the horse being owned by both parties in conjunction, —Dempster saul that they had bought the horse on 27th September, 1919. Brazier trained it from January to April which time he brought it to a farm where Dempster was staying. He arranged to pay half the cost of keeping the horse. Since then Brazier had sold his interest in it. The horse won one race previous to this time and four firsts and a second since. Mr Patrick said Dempster had arranged to keep the horse for the use of it. Brazier had given Dempster money 'for the keep of the horse at two different times.—Judgment for plaintiff for £6 12/-, costs 37/-.

J. R. Corkhill (Mr Patrick) v. D. Dowling (Mr Macalister), claim) £lB 6s 6d for remainder of building contract and day labour in building a house. £2OO had been paid on the contract price of £2lO. Defendant, who now disputed the quality df the timber, had passed it all through his own hands previously ‘when carting it. Defendant counter-claimed 'for bad wrokmansbip, and £9 for cutting three acres of crop, which plaintiff considered was worth £2 10/-. The house had been completed 1 about j a year ago and plaintiff just asked for remainder of payment. Defendant had arranged to cart the timber for the house. He had carted it, rejecting seme that was rotten. This plaintiff had asked him to bring up for scaffolding, and had put it into the house. Defendant had spent one day cutting the oats but had lost four days altogether. A boy had been employed! to paint the house.—Gluvs. Sutherland, builder, said lie did not think much of the house. It was not well built. The walls were mocked, the spouting ir,, being soldered on the: outside

only. One doer was too small for the frame and would not stay locked. The range and grate, were roughly put in. The paper in the middle room was put on roughly. These faults could easily - bo noticed by anyone going, into thet house. The ridging on the chimney had not been properly pointed np.— Judgment for plaintiff for £lB 16s 6d) claimed, and judgment for defendant for £3l 8s od, counter-claim; - costs £3 12/- in. each ease.