MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XIII, Issue 2566, 14 January 1892, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBURTON-THURSDAY.

(Before Mr C. A. Wray, ft.M.) Alleged Larceny of a Watch. Thomas Johnston, a boy of fourteen years, was charged on remand from llakaia, with having stolen a watch en January 2, valued at £4, the property of Thomas Brownlae, R»kau. The boy denied having taken the watch, stating his brother had done so. The Police Sergeant said he believed this was true m effect, but the accused had been with him when it was done, and had seen tshe younger boy smash the watch into small pieces. The police had been unablo as yet to arrest the younger boy, and would prefer that the case were remanded for a week. This was done. Drunkenness. — John Clifford was charged with drunkenness and riotous behaviour. He pleaded not guilty. Patrick Devane, licensee of the Ashburton Hotel, said Clifford had come to his hotel the previous day, had hung about the place for several hours, and finally begun to, fight with his mata. He used very foul language, and witness had to send for the police. The Sergeant said Clifford had a long record of previous convictions against him, and when the worae of drink was very dangerous. On one occasion he had been seriously injured while under the influence of liquor. Tho, Magistrate sent Clifford to gaol for fourteen days on each charge, with hard labor,; tho sentences to be cumulative. 3 ■'■ 1 Alleged Breach of the Licensing Act.—Henry Davis, licensee of the Royal Hotel, was charged with having on January 9, allowed drunkenness m his licensed premises, and with having supplied liquor to a person already intox? cated. Mr Crisp appeared for accused, who pleaded not s;uilty. Sergeant Moller, said that, as police officer m charge of the district, he was also inspector of licensed houses under the Licensing Act: On Saturday, January 9, witness paw a mail taken hohiQ to his ora house, past the police station, m a dyunken state. The man was brought from the iloyal Hotel. This was at six o'clock. About a quarter to ten the same evening, witness heard noise m the hotel, and entered the house by the side door. A drunken man passed out as witness entered. Did not know this man- The landlord remarked to witness that it was nothing. "Went into the bar, and found a man m a drunken state leaning nodding V the window' oyor the bay. Asked this man what he was doing tfore' £ u £ j ie plied having-* ijeer^or a boose ; was not Bur« about 034*9.6 word*, TJ^re was §,

pint pot on the counter with beer m it before the man. Arrested the man, whose name was Wtn, Fergusson. This man was tried on the following Monday, on a charge of drunkenness* and pleaded guilty. Went back to the hotel the same evening, and saw three men the worse of liquor m one of the rooms. Knew one of the men. His name was Thomas Bryant. Had seen the man Fergusson drunk m town at eleven o'clock on .January 9, and had sent a constable to arrest him, but the constable missed him. By Mr Crisp—The man who passed the station drunk at six o'clock was named Shaw, and would not be called m this case. At the time witness entered the hotel there was much noise, but it might have been all made by oneman. Davis did not say afterwards that the noisy man was one Stigley. Did not know two men named Dudley and Hill, nor that they were m the house. There might have been many drunken men m the house besides those he noted. He could only swear to the man he arrested and the man he m«t coming out. Could not swear to any drink having been sold to either of these men. Constable McGill—Followed Sergeant Moller into the Royal on Saturday evening. Saw the man Fergusson, who had a pewter pot half full of beer before him. Fergusson was drunk, and was locked up by witness. Returned to the hotel with the Sergeant. Saw two or three men m the bagatelle room. One was drunk and waving his hands and arms, and using bad language. The Sergeant cautioned him to be quiet. Another man who came from some other room was also drunk. Would not like to swear as to Thomas Bryant being sober. Did not actually see anybody supplied with liquor. By Mr Crisp—A man did not usually get drunk on lime juice and soda. Had no recollection of having had to push another man out of the way to get to j Fergusson. The house was very crowded that night. By the Bench—There was some argument over a game of cards, and all the noise might have been caused by one man. William Fergusson, a laboring man, said he was m the Royal Hotel on Saturday evening, on the drink. Had two drinks that evening m the hotel. Was under the influence of drink, but could walk well, and did not fall when entering the lock-up. When Sergeant Moller arrested him, the Sergeant said he did so because he was loafing for drink. Did not say to the Sergeant at the lockup that a kindness had been done to him by his arrest that evening. Pleaded guilty m Court on Monday, because he had no money to defend himself, and he wanted to get away to work. In the hotel on Saturday morniug Davis refused witness drink because he had had enough. Had only one glass of beer and the share of a pint during the evening. By Mr Crisp—ln the morning Davis gave witness sixpence to get a drink at Stone's Tinwald Hotel, but witness only went the length of the Ashburton Hotel, spent the coin, and came back to town again. At the Royal Hotel, again, Davis refused to supply witness with liquor but said he would give him food and a bed. The barman supplied a man named Anderson, a German, with three beers, and Anderson gave one to him. By the Bench —The last drink witness received from Davis or the barman was m the morning before he went away. All the other liquor he got was from people who were there drinking. Both Davis and the barman had refused witness liquor half a dozen times that night. Had been drunk for two days before the Saturday m question. For the defence, Mr Crisp called Henry Davis, the hotelkeeper, who said Fergusson between nine and ten o'clock said he was going away to work and asked for a glass of beer. Knew he had no money, and gave him a beer. He also asked for sixpence to get a drink at Tinwald on his way to McGuinness'. Gave him this also. The man came back m the afternoon again, and again a.sk<?d for drink. He did so several times, but as he had no money he was refused, both by witness and the barman, When the Sergeant came m the evening, a man named Stigley was very excited and noisy over a game of euchre, and was the man the Sergeant met when he came m, as Stigley rushed out when the Sergeant came m. Stigley was a man who never got drunk. Fergusson was not drunk m the evening, and the sole reason why he was not supplied with drink was that he had no money. The man was not drunk when he was arrested by the Sergeant, and after the arrest there were several remarks made by the people m the house as to the injustice of it. Thomas Topping corroborated Davis' evidence, Fergusson was unusually noisy, given to singing and fooling about when drunk, but on this occasion he was very quiet. Fergusson left m the morning, but came back m the afternoon, and said he had had a sleep. Refused him liquor then because he had no money. Henry Anderson, a laboring man, said.he went on Saturday to the Royal with his mate Wheeler. Knew Fergusson, who several times asked the landlord, Wheeler, and witness for liquor. Witness at last consented to Bhout, and bought two long shandies and a pint of beer. The beer he gave to Fergusson, who said he was dying for a drink, and witness took pity on him. The barman could not have known who the drinks were for. Stigley was the only noisy man m the place, and there was no drunkenness m the place as far as he saw all night. By the police—Fergusson was perfectly sober when he was arrested. The Bench said he had no doubt Fergusson was properly convicted on Monday, but the evidence was very conflicting as to whether he had been supplied with liquoi by Davis or his barman. He had got liquor evidently from other people m the house, but his Worship could hardly charge this to the iicensee. He could see that there had been some drinking m the house, and perhaps some disorderliness ; but the evidence was .not such as would justify the recording of a conviction. Both charges would be dismissed.