MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2471, 8 April 1909, Page 6

MAGISTERIAL.

> I '' ■ »■■ ■ ■ < ■ ' WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7. — (Before Mr.;W. A, Barton, S.M.) DRUNKENNESS. A first offender was convicted and fined 6s with 2s costs, in default 24 hours’ imprisonment with hard labor. SUPPLYING LIQUOR TO PROHIBITED PERSON. Thcs. Sheen pleaded not guilty to a ; charge of having supplied liquor to one Anthony Rodgers, knowing him 'to be a prohibited person. > 7 / Sergt. YHutton conducted the prosecution, and defendant was not represented by counsel. Constable Scott stated that on the 10th March, at 6.45 a.m. he was on duty in Lowe Street. He saw the defendant standing near the Coronation Hotel, also saw' him walk down Lowe Street and go into Anthony Rodger’s shop. Rodgers was a; prohibited person. Defendant came out of the shop immediately and walked down to the Gisborne Hotel, where he stood and had a look round before entering the hotel. After leaving the hotel defendant returned to Lowe Street and after passing Rodgers’ shop returned and went into the shop. Witness followed defendant into the shop, and found a soda water bottle full of whisky >on the table. In answer to witness’ question Rodgers at first denied having received T any drink from defendant, and defendant having given him any. Rodgers, on being pressed, admitted later on that defendant had brought him the liquor. He (witness) had often seen defendanthanging about Rodgers’ shop early in the morning. John Law, barman at the Gisborne Hotel, said that defendant came to the hotel early on the morning of the 19th March, and bought one shilling’s worth of whisky in a soda-water bottle. Defendant took the bottle away with -him, -and, later on Constable Scott showed him (witness) a similar bottle. G. J. A. Johnston gave formal evidence as to the prohibition order in force against Anthony Rodgers, dated 27th January, 1909, and for a period of twelve months.

This closed the case for the prosecution.

Thos. Sheen, the defendant, who elected to give evidence on his own behalf, said that he was going down Lowe Street on his way home. Rodgers, who was in his window’, called him and asked him to get him some whisky as he had been ill the previous night. Rodgers told him to go to the Gisborne Hotel as they kept the best liquor. He (witness) did not know Rodgers was prohibited. To Sergt. Hutton: He did not know Rodgers, although the latter called him ‘•'Tom.” He was quite certain that he ■did not know Rodgers was prohibited.

His Worship said that defendant’s actions were not those of an innocent man. He was quite satisfied that the defendant did know Rodgers was prohibited. It was men like defendant that rendered prohibition orders ineffectual. Defendant would be convicted an fined £lO -and costs 1 7s, in default to be levied by distress, and in default. of distress two months’ imprisonment with hard labor in the Napier prison. A MAINTENANCE MATTER. Lena Johnston proceeded against her husband, Charles Johnston, for failure to provide maintenance for her and his stepson. air. T. Alston Coleman appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Plaintiff, in the course of a searching I cross-examination by Mr. Coleman, admitted that she had been married to a man called William Watson, in 1888. Since then she lied lived with a man named Charles Yates. She believed William Watson was dead because a [friend had told her so. The man Yates did not marry her, not because Watson I was alive, but because he refused to be “tied down.” Mr. Coleman said be thought that they could prove that William Watson 'was -alive. In the marriage certificate it was stated (that plaintiff f.va.o a spinster, aged thirty-three when she married William Jolmst-on, in Gisborne in 1908. This would have made her ■eleven years -old wjlien she- married Watson, in 1888. The document was absolutely false and the plaintiff had .wilfully deceived both the Registrar and the man Johnston whom she was about to marry. He held that plaintiff, owing to- her conduct, was not entitled to an order. His Worship said that although plaintiff had acted very wrongly, yet until the marriage, if it was unlawful, was annulled, he must regard the plaintiff as the wife of defendant. Counsel then proceeded to call evidence. Charles Johnston, defendant, -said that since his marriage to plaintiff he bad paid the rent and all the bills. . He also supplied the plaintiff with plenty of clothes, and on several occasions he had given her money. He left the bouse because plaintiff accused him of going about with another “girl.” This was untrue, and lie. neither gambled or drank. When he left the house there was plenty of food in it. He went to the Turanganui Hotel, and plaintiff followed him. She threatened him with a revolver on that occasion. Witness further described acts of violence towards him by plaintiff at various times. At the time of bis marriage to plaintiff she told him she was single. About a month ago he asked plaintiff in the gaol if she had not been married before. She replied in the negative. . Henry Ewart Hill, Registrar of Marriages, said that a, few days after the marriage took place a man came and told him something referring to the parties to the marriage, j His Worship ruled that the evidence, of such conversation was inadmissible. Harry - Harwood, laborer, said that while defendant wa3 away in the bush he and liis wife rented two rooms from plaintiff. A man used to come to see plaintiff, coining at night and going away in the morning. This man, whose name was “Jade” something, used to remain in plaintiff’s bedroom all night, their voices could be distinctly heard.

i Alexander Tait, billiard marker at (he Turanganui Hotel, said that about three weeks ago lie saw plaintiff with what appeared to be a revolver, j , Air. Coleman said that he had no more evidence to call at tlint stage iff the proceedings. He anticipated [that an order would be made owing to the view taken by liis Worship, but he asked leave for a short- time to enable him; to look up authorities on the ■ubject, to endeavor to' show that on •fie' evidence*his Worship would he justfled in refraining from making an orHis "Worship- said that he would give -eunsel .the opportunity, asked- for . (The rase• was- adjourned until this morning 1.10 o'clock. ; A Y

prohibition order. --A prohibition‘order was issiied- againt a young man ori the application c>