RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXI, Issue 1189, 28 January 1864, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.

CHRISTCHURCII.—Wednesday, January 27. (Before Joseph Brittan, Esq., R.M.) DRUNKENNESS. Mary Anne Robertson, who has repeatedly made her appearance before the Bench, was brought up charged with having been drunk and disorderly. The Resident Magistrate observed that he was determined for the future, in cases of habitual drunkards, to put in force the power which he possessed of ordering all such persons to find security for their good behaviour, and in default of their doing so, committing them to prison. The prisoner, who admitted the offence, was fined 10s. ASSAULTING THE POLICE IN THE EXECUTION" OF THEIR DUTY. Edward Byrne was charged with this offence. The prisoner, who asserted that he did not remember " a hap'orth " about the matter, was fined £1. There was another charge against him, viz., that of wilfully destroying Government property by tearing the uniform coat of the constable who took him into custody. The offence having been proved, the prisoner was fined £1, and ordered to make good the damage done to the coat of the constable. BREACH OF THE PUBLIC HOUSE ORDINANCE. John Birdsey was charged with a breach of the second clause of the Public House Ordinance, 1863, which enacts as follows— " If any person not being duly licensed, shall upon any occasion sell any quantity less than two gallons of any one kind of spirituous liquor, wine, ale, beer, or knowingly permit the same to be sold in or upon his house or premises, or to be removed at any one time from his premises for the purpose of sale, he shall forfeit and pay for every such offence the sum of fifty pounds, provided that no person who has been convicted under the provisions of this section shall at any time thereafter be permitted to hold any license whatsoever under this Ordinance."

Mr. Moorhouse attended on behalf of the defendant.

John Fox was called, and stated that on Sundaj' last, about 5 p.m., he was at the race-course, and saw the defendant standing behind the bar in the grand stand. Witness was supplied with two glasses of pale brandy, and paid for them at the rate of Is each. The defendant was close bj r , and must have heard the orders given. The mate of the witness also had two glasses, which were paid for.

Mr. Moorhouse, on behalf of the defendant, admitted the sale of the grog, but pleaded that he had an authority from two magistrates to sell spirits. He had neglected to lodge the said authority with the chief officer of the police.

The Kesident Magistrate remarked that it was forbidden to sell liquor on Sunday or Christmas Day, and other days of the same character.

Mr. Moorhouse contended that the witness and his mate were bona fide travellers, and as such were entitled obtain refreshments.

The Kesident Magistrate observed that it appeared to him that there were two separate charges against the defendant: one for selling liquor in an unlicensed building, and the other for selling it on Sunday. He should suggest that the former charge should begone into first, the other might be a matter of a separate information. The whole question resolved itself into this: namely, that the defendant having trespassed the bounds of his license could not be considered a duly licensed person within the meaning of the clause.

Mr. Moorhouse contended that the defendant being a duly licensed publican, could not come under the operation of the second clause of the Ordinance as quoted above, which required tnat the person convicted should "be proved not to be duly licensed."

The Resident Magistrate observed that it was a most difficult rase to decide upon, and was one of such importance as to require the most careful consideration. The whole question 'turned upon the point whether the defendant was or was not duly licensed. The police contended that having transgressed the limits of his license the defendent ceased to be a licensed vendor of liquor. Mr. Moorhouse, on the contrary, argued that he was a duly licensed victualler. After reviewing the whole circumstances of the jase, and endeavouring to ascertain the spirit as well as the letter of the law, he had come to the conclusion that there were two classes of offenders liable to the penalties named in the Ordinance—one consisting of those who never having received a license, sold liquor, and were what is commonly called " sly grog sellers," —the other of persons who, having obtained a license, afterwards transgressed its terms. The penalties in the former case were very severe : in the latter they were less so. The impression on bis mind, after studying the tenor of the law, was, that a person once duly licensed, retained that position. The information, therefore, in the present instance could not be sustained, as the defendant was evidently a duly licensed dealer. The case must therefore be dismissed. There was another case under the same circumstances, the defendant in this instance being Augustus Moore, the landlord of the Spreydou Arms, in the Riccarton road, who wasadiiirged willi selling liquor in a booth attached to the Race-course. Mr. Slater appeared for the defendant, and admitted (he sale of liquor on the premises mentioned in the information, but relied on the decision of the Resident Magistrate as given in the previous case. The arguments on all sides were almost identical with those already detailed. The Resident Magistrate remarked that this charge was precisely analogous to the one just heard, and on the same grounds he should dismiss the information.