MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2439, 2 March 1909, Page 5

MAGISTERIAL.

' MONDAY, MARCH 1. (Before Mr. W. A. Barton, S.M.) DRUNKENNESS. Five offenders for drunkenness were dealt with. Three of them, who wore making their initial appearance in Court, were fined the usual amount, and John 'Hunter and a Native named Pirinihia Te Eke were each fined 10s and costs 2s, or 48 hours’ imprisonment. ' - _ ■ • - SANITARY CASES. ■ The adjourned cases in which tho Sanitary Inspector (Mr. J. R. Little) proceeded against James Erskine and E. T. Harries ■ for failing to provide proper receptacles for rubbish at their premises were called on. ' Mr. T. Alston Coleman again appeared for the informant, and defendants, who pleaded guilty/ were represented by Mr. Burnard. Speaking on behalf of defendant Erskine, Mr. Burnard stated his case was similar to those in which decision , was given on Saturday. A fine of 5s was imposed. In reference to the charge against Mr. Harries, Mr. Buruard said his case was somewhat different. 'lnstead of“-having a brick receptacle defendant had a wooden box, which could be removed by one person, hut which was liable to absorption. The box was only used for depositing therein the sawdust out of the shop. He had ordered a proper receptacle, but owing to the rush on. them could not secure one until the day after the summons was issued. Counsel asked that a conviction be entered without a fine. His Worship said that under the circumstances he would inflict a nominal fine of Is. ASSAULT ON A -CHINAMAN. The case of Lee Choy v. Tu Rewi Haapu, a charge of assault, was next called. Mr. J. R. Kirk appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. H. J. Finn for the defendant. Plaintiff, in answer to Mr. Kirk, said that he had been in Gisborne for 39 years. On January 23 he was billiard marking in the [Masonic hotel. Defendant had one game of billiards and paid the other marker for the table. Defendant owed him 2s 6d for some handkerchiefs. Witness asked him for it, but defendant refused.- Defendant oauglit hold of him and pulled him about and tore his shirt. Witness did not touch defendant. To. Mr. Finn : Witness was not a regular billiard-marker. He was asked to go into the billiard room during the marker’s absence. Defendant went out to the back of the hotel after witness asked him for the money - for the game. Defendant did not leave his hat in the billiard room. Witness followed him to the urinal. It was there where the shirt was torn. Witness asked defendant three or four times to pay the 2s 6d. Re-examined by Mr. Kirk : Witness asked defendant for the 2s 6d in the alley-way. William Alfred Forrest, billiard marker at the Masonic Hotel, stated that informant had often been employed as assistant billiard marker. From what he told witness on the day in question the latter went out and got defendant to pay for the game. At the same time informant said defendant owed him 2s 6d. The latter pulled out a handful of silver and said, “I am not poor yet, hut I won’t pay a Chinaman.” Defendant then caught the Chinaman by the shirt and tore it. Defendant then walked out towards the back and informant followed him. The Chinaman did not touch the defendant. To Mr. Finn: Only the sliirt was torn, no blows were struck.

Edward Payton, porter at the Masonic Hotel, said he was in the yard when the Maori and Chinaman came out- of the billiard room. The latter was asking the defendant for 2s 6d, and while he was doing so the defendant rushed at- him, caught hold of his shirt, and tore it, and said he would not pay the 2s 6d. By. Mr. Finn: Defendant- had no hat- on -at the time. There were a lot of people in the yard at the time. Mr. Finn said' he must admit that defendant tore the shirt, -and by so doing committed an assault, but he contended that defendant was provoked by being annoyed by the informant,' who continued asking for the 2s 6d.

■His Worship said it was - not- a serious assault. At Greymouth, where he resided for some years, he became acquainted with the customs of Cliinameu and found them very law-abiding, and he knew that it took a- good deal to provoke them. There were some people who took a delight- in annoying Chinamen, and this sort of thing must be stopped. They .were iust as much entitled to protection as Europeans. Defendant was fined £1 and costs £3 lss 6d, in default four days’ hard labor.

CHARGE AGAINST A BUTCHER

The Insjiector of Stock (Mr. W. Ross) proceeded against William Middleton, a butcher, for feeding swine on raw offal.

Mr. F. W. Nolan appeared for the * informant, and Mr. Burnard for tho defendant.

Mr. Nolan stated, that the inspector visited the piggery on the 14th ult.„ when there were about- 40 pigs in the stye feeding on unboiled offal. The inspector pointed out the matter to defendant, who appeared to be aware of the requirements of tlie Act. The Department wished the .prosecution to be known, for farmers could not bo permitted to become careless, and the Department could not allow such offences as this to pass without notice. They -wished the attention, of butchers in the trade to be called to the matter. Mr. Burnard, for the defendant, admitted that it was perfectly right for tho Department to take such a stand, but he pointed out that it was not a serious breach. Defendant had recently taken delivery of 40 pigs, which were in a jx>or condition. As they would not take boiled food lie. ; threw them some unboiled offal. It was not a deliberate breach of the Act, as he had to give the pigs something. His Worship pointed out that it was very necessary that tho law should he observed on sanitary grounds. He had no doubt doiondant knew the Act and elected t-o take the consequences. Ho imposed a line of £'2. pointing-out (bat the maximum line.was £oU, aml that- l-he amount lie bad imposed that day would be increased if there were other cases in future.' Costs were allowed at 7s, /and solicitor’s fee £1 IS. - •' *. ‘ -