RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 770, 12 March 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before G. G. FitzGerald, Esq., R.M.) Wednesday, March 11. Drunk and Incapable. — Jolm Olson, James Childs, William Guilfroy, and Joseph Armstrong, were each fined 10?, with the alternative of four aud twenty hours' imprisonment in default of payment. The Inspector of Police stated that George Bacon, who had been arrested on a similar charge, had been taken ill, and it had been found necessary to send him to the hospital for medical treatment. The charge was accordingly withdrawn. Breach of Police Ordinance. — Jos. Armstrong was fined 10s, and ordered to pay L 2 for destroying a waterproof, the property of the constable who arrested him ou the last charge. DISOBEYING AN ORDER MADE BY THE MAGI TRATES. John Barrett was charged by the police — •' For that within the space of sis months last past (to wit), on the eighth clay of March, 1868, at Hokitika, in the colony aforesaid, did keep his licensed ; house, Barrett's Hotel, open, he, the said, i John Barrett, having boon ordered to ' I close tho said hotel by two of Her -Majesty's Justices, contrary to Section - CVil. of the Justice of the Pcaco Act, - 1866." Mr South appeared for the defendant. Sectiou CVII. of tho above recited Act states, " It shall be lawful for auy Justice of the Peace, when auy riot or tumult shall happen, or for any two or more Justices of the Peace, whon any riot or tuuiult may bo expected to take place, to order that every person licensed to sell spirituous liquors, wine, ale, or beer, and keeping auy house iv or near the place where such riot or tumult shall happen, or be expected to take place, shall close his house at any time, which such Justice or Justices shall order, and every such person who shall keep open his house after the time at which such Justice or Justices shall have so ordered such house to be closed, shall be deemed to have offended against the" law and the conditions upon which his license was granted." Mr South took .objection to the manner in which the information had been laid. He contended that it was not drawn in compliance with the provisions of the section of the Act mider which it was laid, and did not contain or show within itself on the face of it a specific allegation showing an infraction of the statute. The time also was not stated at which the Justices had ordered the houses to be closed. The information did not show an infraction of the law on the face of it. He did not consider the information was sufficiently full. His Worship remarked that the question was whether the information was sufficiently clear to put the defendant on his defence. He was of opinion that it was.. The Inspector of Police called SeniorSergeant Hickson, who deposed that on Saturday last he proceeded to defendant's house and informed him that an order had been made by the Magistrates to the effect Jthat all the public-houses in the town and suburbs, without distinction, were to be kept closed from the closing time on Saturday evening till six o'clock on the morning of the Monday following. Witness produced the order, and read it to defendant. He further informed him that no liqiior was to be supplied during that time, and that no light was to be kept burning in the bar, under penalty of the license being cancelled and the defendant being fined in a sum the Court might think fit to impose. The Clerk to tho Bench hero read the order referred to by tho witness, which ran as follows :—": — " Whereas by the Justices of the Peace Act, 186(3, it is provided that in case any tumult is expected to tako place, auy two Justices of the Peace may order any licensed public-house at or near the place where such tumult may be expected to take place to be closed for such tinio as they snail think fit. We tho undorsigned Justices of tho Peace do heroby order that the following public-houses shall be closed on Sunday the Bth hist, throughout the day." Here followed a list comprising all the public-houses in and about the town. The- order was signed by G. G. FitzGerald, G. S. Sale, and J. A. Bonar. Cross-examined by Mr South — When witness saw Barrett he told him he was to keep his house closed till six; o'clock on Monday morning. Ho placed his own interpretation on tho nioauing of the words " throughout the day," as stated in tho order. Constable O'Callaghan was called, and doposed that at about half-past eight o'clock on the evening of the Bth inst. he entered the defendant's public-house by the side-door. A number of people were going hi at tho time, and witness followed' them in. On entering the house he found from fifteen to twenty people in the bar. Witness spoke to Barrett about having a light burning in the bar, and he replied that he was allowed to keep a light burning there. Defendant was at the time behind the bar. Up to the time of the witness being relieved at twelve o'clock there was a light in the bar. Cross-examined by Mr South— He first went in about half-past seven. Witness cannot say whether he knocked at the door the first time. He looked into the bar at that time, and there was no one there, with the exception of a female. " The front door was shut. The side door faces the street. Witness could not say what the people were drinking. Witness did not see Barrett serve them. Constable Elliott deposed to being in company with constable O'Callaghan on both occasions of his visiting the defendant's house on the night in question. Witness corroborated tho evidence of the former witness, with one 1 exception — he could not say whether Barret was behind the bar, but he saw him in tho bar. Cross-examined by Mr South—Witness saw no drinks served, heavd tkt

people talking as he passed tho house. He did not see any drunken men in the house. There was no noise id the house with the exception of the voices of tho people who were speaking in tho bar. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr South addressed the Court on behalf of the defendant, and stated that it was not his intention to call any cAndence. His client's case would close with the remarks he was about to make to the Bench. It was not for him to enqure into, or comment upon the reasons as to why the authorities had seen fit to order any public-houses to be closed ; no doubt their grounds were sufficient, and every citizen, including himself, would wish to see good order and peace preserved. The question, however, remained, as to whether in this case sufficient proof had been give of its violation. The learned counsel contended that the police had failed to prove -that the house had been kept open within the meaning of the 107 th clause of the statue, or that the defendant had not closed his house. They had not shown any drinking was going on, nor even had the defendant served the men the police found in the house with liquor. The case as it stood simply amounted to this — that a party of men were having a discussion in the bar of the defendant's public-house. They had the evidence of the constables that they were conducting themselves in a qxu'et and orderly manner. There certainly had been no infraction of the order made by the Justices. The order clearly stated that the Public-houses were to be closed throughout the day, and he (Mr South) took it that it was the intention of the Justices that the Publicans should be guided hy the wording of the order, and not by the construction placed upon it by Sergeant Hickson. He argued that reading the order strictly, thorc had been no infraction of it. If his Avorship considered that order had been Aiolatcd, so far as ho could sec the Justice of tho Peace Act, or Public-house Ordinance did not provide a penalty. So far from there having been no case of disorder in the town, it had been the general observation that comparative silence reigned throughout the tOAvn — as things should be on tho Sabbath. There had not boon a single case of drunkenness before his worship, he (Mr South) believed, on the following day— no doubt chiefly owing to tho wit>c closing of the inns — and he submitted all these circumstances should bo taken into consideration. He (Mr South) could not sec how the bench could come to tho conclusion-that tho defendant had offended against tho law— if it Avas proved that his house Avas actually open at tho time prohibited — and on this point the notice AA'as very A-ague, aud that no actual drinking had been pimcd to be going on within that time ; ,on Avhich latter feature of the case ho Avould take the evidence of the constable, as to the strict sobriety of the inmates. Was, he would ask, a Publican to close his house to boarders or bonu fide travellers ? He (Mr South) submitted to the bench, in conclusion, that the CAidencc did not sufficiently support the information. Bis worship remarked that in his opinion the order had been violated. There was no occasion for him to allude to the reasons why the order had been made. It had been generally obeyed. The section of the Act under Avhich the order had been made, referr d back to the Ordinance under Avhich the license had been granted, and the Ordinance did not provide any penalty. He would represent the facts to the Government, and would at the same time recommend the defendant's license to be suspended. His Worship made an order for the defendant to pay costs in the case. A similar charge was made against William Melody, (Melody's Hotel.) The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution was of a similar nature to that brought forward in the former case. Mr South, who appeared for the defendant, said the remarks made by him in the last case would also apply in this instance. His Worship stated that it was a disgraceful thing that people iv the defendant's position on these occasions would not strengthen the hand of the Justices.' They were not good citizens, and were not entitled to hold licenses. He would make the same recommendation to the Government as in the last case. Similar informations were laid againt John M'Quilkin, (Belfast Hotel), Daniel Murphy, (Munster JPoteL) and James Jones, (Templemore Hotel.) Mr South appeared for the defendants. The decision of the Court was the same in those as in the former cases. CIVIL CASES. E. W. Jones and Co. v. Linstroni. Mr South for defendant. A claim for Ll2 for one month's rent of the Charley Napier Hotel. The plaintiff Avas nonsuited (with costs), as it appeared that he was merely acting as agent in the matter, and had no power of attorney from the principal authorising to appear oil his behalf. M'Guiro and Lynch v. Garforth — A claim for 17s for bread. It Avas shoAvn that the goods had been supplied before the defendant entered upon the premises, (Newmarket Hotel, Arahura.) Judgment Avas accordingly given for the defendant. The Court Avas then adjourned till 11 o'clock this day.