MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2654, 9 November 1909, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

MONDAY, NOVEMBER S

(Before Mr W. A. Barton, S.M.)

DRUNKENNESS

• A first offender, who did not appear, was lined 18s and 2s costs, for drunkenness, and another who was present in Court was fired os and 2s costs.

Frank 'Haycock pleaded guilty to a charge of drunkenness, having been once previously, convicted within the past six months. The accused, who asked lor a prohibition order to be taken out against him, was fined 10s and costs or 48 hours’ imprisonment. The order was made as requested. Alexander Morrison, who had been twice previously convicted within the past six months, was sent to gaol for / days for drunkenness, and had a prohibition order made against him for .12 months. Mr Fkn appeared for the accused. THE WAIKAN A E CASES.

The charges of drunkenness and other offences arising out of the arrest ol the husband of lleni Willoughby after the fatal lire the other night, were dealt with.

Henry Willoughby, alias Ponsonby, was charged with being an habitual drunkard, having been four times convicted within the past nine months. He pleaded guilty. Mr Finn said that the accused appeared before the Court under very unfortunate circumstances. It was much to l>e regretted that anyone should have supplied a prohibited person with drink, and the result of this in the present case was well -known to his Worship. He asked that the accused should not be sent to gaol for a long period. Willoughby deeply regretted what had occurred, and bad promised to reform.

His Worship: I think the Lest thing would be to send you to Pakatoa Island, but inquiries will have to be made as to' whether there is room for you there. Sentence was deferred until Wednesday in order that Sergt. Hutton might inquire on this point, and His Worship intimated that lie would then have something to say to the prisoner. Edward Tift ley was charged with drunkenness, having been 'previously convicted* within the past six months. The accused pleaded not guilty, but the evidence of three police constables went to show that at rtie time of his arrest last Thursday night Tittl-ey was badlv intoxicated.

His Worship: It is absurd 3-011 having pleaded not guilty in a case like this.

A fine of £1 and 2s costs was imposed with the alternative of 4 daj's’ imprisonment. Tittley also pleaded not guilty to the further charge of having supplied liquor to a prohibited person, namely Henry Willoughby. “I brought the beer down but not for Willoughby,’ ’he said.

Thomas Sidney gave evidence as to the accused taking beer to the house of a Mrs Collier, when Willoughby, the witness and the accused consumed it. Constable Pratt stated that on Friday morning at the Police Station, the accused had admitted that Willoughby had given him four shillings to buy four bottles of beer. He did so, and drank two of them with" Willoughby, taking the others to Mrs Collier’s. Ho admitted that he knew that Willoughby was prohibited. His Worship: So long as we have such characters as 3'ou about I’m afraid prohibition orders are rendered ineffectual. You will be fined £lO and 2s costs, or two months’ imprisonment in •er gaol. I am only sorry I cannot send you. to prison for a longer period. You richly deserve it. Thomas. Sidney, a Maori, was then charged with assisting Willoughby to consume liquor. He pleaded not guilty. Henry Willoughby gave evidence that the accused had known him a month or .six weeks. He had been on the habit of visiting the witness and the Maoris occasionally. He thought Sidney knew he was prohibited, but had not told him so himself or heard the fact mentioned in Sidney’s presence. Constable Pratt deposed to a conversation he had with the defendant two months ago. Knowing that Sidney was related to Willoughby’s wife he asked him if he knew that Willoughby was prohibited. Sidney replied in the affirmative, and the constable remarked that it was only his duty to inform the police when he saw low white men taking drink to their house. Mr Barton said that when he had cases of this 'kind before him he intended to fix the maximum penalty. A fine of £lO and 7s costs was imposed, in default the amount to be recovered distress, and in the case of there not being goods of sufficient value to distrain on, two months’ imprisonment.