MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2356, 24 November 1908, Page 6

MAGISTERIAL.

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23

B(efore Air W

A. Barton, S.M.)

DRUNKENNESS. A first offender was convicted and dealt with in the usual maimer. Another man, on a similar charge, who had been remanded lor a week, for medical treatment, was _ agarn brought up and was fined os with l«.s COStS. • , ,„rAi, PROCURING LIQUOIt. • Arthur Carrington was charged with having procured liquor during the currency of a prohibition order against him. ■ , Mr Blair, on behalr of accused, entered a plea of guilty, but said that 1 he desired to bring under His Worship’s notice the 'fact that the mental equipment of accused was not vcij strong. Counsel further urged that ■accused got the liquor for his mother who was ill in bed, and liad been ordered a stimulant by her medical attendant. She got her son to get her the whisky, but h'o (counsel) could not plead that accused was in ignorance that he was breaking tlio law in &'o doing. . 1 Ilia Worship said that he uas aware that the accused was mentally deficient, but he was hardly satisfied that the liquor he had obtained was for his mother. A fine of £o with 11s costs was imposed, m default 30 days’ hard labor. Frances Edward V\ uson pleaded guilty to a similar ealirge and a like penalty was imposed in his case. His Worship gave the defendant some sound advice and counselled him to leave liquor alone, at the same time warning him that the penalty would he substantially increased on any future occasion lie might appeal on a similar charge.

SUPPLYING. LIQUOR _TO PRO HI

JUTED PERSONS

John O’Grady pleaded gmlty to a charge of having supplied liquor to one, Arthur Carrington, knowing him to be a prohibited person. Sergeant Hutton detailed the circumstances of the offence,- and stated that the accused gave the liquor to Carrington underneath the Haiti bridge. On the arrival of Constable iScott the bottle containing the whisky was thrown away, and the parties separated, one running one way and the other' in an opposite direction. His Worship said that lie was determined' to impose the maximum penalty allowed by law. Accused would be lined £lO with 2s costs, in default .two months’ imprisonment with hard labor.

AN INFORMATION DISMISSED. Leo Hansby was charged with having, on November 19th, 1908, supplied liquor to one Francis Edward Wilson, 'knowing him to be a prohibited person. k Sergeant Hutton conducted the prosecution, and defendant, through liis solicitor, Mr J. 11. Kirk, pleaded not guilty. Alfred Wade, plumber; said that on the day of the 19th inst he was working in his shop in Grey street. Defendant was standing on the opposite side o'f the street, looking towards Wilson's shop. He crossed,the road and witness went up to the corner of the street to see a policeman. Upon his return he saw defendant coming out of Wilson’s shop. He then rode down Gladstone road on his bicycle and passed defendant, who was walking. Defendant came down by Peel Street and went- inW the British Empire hotel by one of the front doors. Witness then returned to his shop and on p issing Bright street he saw defendant coming through the stable from the back of the British Empire hotel, with a bottle of beer in each pocket. Getting Mr Walter Black to accompany him, witness waited and suv defendant go into Wilson’s shop. Witness followed him to the door and saw him put the bottles on the bench. He said to defendant,- “Now I have got you,” and he replied, “It is the first time I have ever done it,” AV itness told his hoy to ring for the police, and he himself followed defendant, who endeavored to clear away. \\ itness later saw the constable get the two bottles of beer from a box in Wilson’s backyard. To Mr Kirk: He did not set.out to try and convict defendant. He was quite clear that defendant did not teil him that he did not know Wilson was prohibited. Defendant walked straight into Wilson’s shop and put the beer down on the bench. He did not hold very strong views on the liquor question, nor- was lie one of the leaders of the prohibition movement. "Walter Stewart Black gave similar evidence and said that he saw Wilson remove the bottles to the back of the shop. To Mr Kirk: He was quite clear that . defendant did not say he did no know Wilson was prohibited, although defendant mumbled something that he (witness) could not hear. James Kinnaird Scott, constable, gave evidence of having met Mr Wade in Grey street. They went together to Tustin’s' shop where defendant was. Defendant, when asked for an explanation, said that he had met Wilson at his shop door, and that Wilson had asked him to get two bottles of beer.. He had got the two bottles which he handed to him. To Mr Kirk: Defendant denied knowing that Wilson was prohibited. This concluded the evidence for the prosecution and Air Kirk opened the ease at length for the defence. Leo Hansby, painter, stated that ho went to Tustin’s shop in Grey Street to meet his partner. His mate was not there and he waited about for some time. Attracted by the writing on Wilson’s window opposite lie crossed over the street, and entered into conversation with Wilson, who enquired who he was and suggested a drink as it was such, a hot day. Witness shortly afterwards went down to' the British Empire hotel and procured l two bottles of beer which lie brought back to the shop •and placed on the bench. Just then Wade came rushing in very excited and said, “I’ve got you. I’ll get you three months for this. This may is prohibited 1 and you know it.” Witness replied that he did not know "Wilson or that lie was prohibited, and he then went across to Tustin.’s shop again, being followed by Mr Wad©, wlio rang up for the police. Witness offered to "go to the police station with Air Wade, but Constable Scott arrived and in answer to questions from him, he (witness) admitted that he had got the drink, but that he -did not -know that Wilson was prohibited. If he had known "Wilson was prohibited h e would certainly not

have supplied the drink. To Sergt. Button: Hu had nevor been in Wilson’s shop until the morning in question, nor had' he ever nict Wilsbu or spoken io him before. ' Francis Edward Wilson said that he first became acquainted with defendant on 19th November. He did not tell defendant that he was a prohibited person. Before the morning of 19th inst. he never, saw defendant to his knowledge. His Worship said that before he could record a conviction he must be satisfied that the defendant knew that AVI Ison was a prohibited'person-. From the evidence there appeared to he a doubt if such was the cash, and defendant was therefore entitled, to the benefit of the doubt. The evidence given by the witnesses Wade and Black was given in a straightforward manner and lie commended them for their action. While not disbelieving their evidence, the information would have to be dismissed His Worship then addressed defendant giving him some advice and warning him to beware of liquor in the future.