MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXIX, Issue 7731, 26 February 1909, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBUIITON, FRIDAY, FEB. 26.

(Before Mr V. G. Day, S.M.)

DRUNKENNESS. John Herbert Watson was charged, on the information of the police with drunkenness m a railway carnage at the Ashburton railway station,,on lebruary 25. The defendant did not appear and was convicted and fined 20s and costs. THE LICENSING ACT. Albert Whitaker, storekeeper, of Ashburton, was charged, on the information of the police, with keeping liquor for sale on January 30, and he was further charged with selling liquor ou the same date. There were two other informations against the defendant both of which related to the same offence, but were laid under different clauses of the Act. The third and fourth charges related to the sale ot liquor without a license. The charges were eventually reduced to one, that of keeping liquor for sale. Mr Jfurnell appeared for the defendant, and Sergeant Fouhy prosecuted. John Fitz-gerald, the Returning Officer for the Ashburton licensing district, gave evidence to sho\y that Ashburton was a no-license district. Restoration had not been carried at the last poll, but owing to the change m the electoral boundaries hotels were now included m the Ashburton district. He was taking steps at the present time to have a Licensing Committee elected for this district. He believed that 7 licensed houses existed m the Geraldine portion of the electorate but to his own knowledge there were nve. Sergeant Fouhy said that on Jan-iuu-v ;SOth, at 4.45 p.m., m company wui'i Constable O'Grady, he visited the defendant's house, and executed a i search warrant. He went mat the front door and found the defendant standing inside the main counter. He told him that he had a search warrant, which, he produced. Fve men were standing at the counter on which were, five glasses which smelt of whisky. There was' also a jug of water. Inside the counter he found a dish of water, which, apparently had hern used for rinsing glasses, as it smelt of whisky. On a ledge at right-angles to the counter ho found a bottle containing whisky, and. he also discovered an empty whisky bottle of the same brand. A further search revealed nothing. Mr Crisp, who was among the men at the counter, walked away when witness had informed those present that he intended to exorcise a search warrant. Two of the men denied that they had had liquor. By Mr Purnell: The house was a general store and was open for business. He did not sec Mr Crisp go i.i. The glasses may have been where the glasses and crockery were kept ior sale. He would hardly expect that the dish of water would be for the purpose of cleansing the hands. There were some beer glasses on the counter which may have been for sale, but they had the appearance of having been used, witness spent two hours m the house and was searching all the time. Ihere might have been liquor which was not discovered. He believed that all the men found m the store were, with the exception of Mr Crisp, farmers, and all were m good circumstances. He made no enquiries about them after the raid. As far as he knew, they were respectable men. He knew that farmers put their traps m the defendant s yard on Saturdays, but he did not know that the hitters' business was chiefly with farmers. He did not base his prosecution entirely. on the fact that the number of glasses on the counter corresponded with the number of men at the- counter. 'Witness tasted what was In one of the glasses. "While witness was in' the shop a lady came ■■;\- lii and was served with foods..

Mr PurneiJ urged that the prosecution must fail and the ease should be dismissed, because at present Ashbiirton was a licensing district. Under Section 5 of the Act all electoral districts were licensing districts and there was no such thing as part of a district. I'ntil the 30th or June A,sh!.uri :>n was a licensing district. .\ttrv. lum was directed to "Sort ion 1-iG of the Act by which ;i uo-lironKe district was described ;;s one m which no licenses were m tore;.l. Licenses were m force m the Ashijurton district, and, therefore, it was not a no-license district. The prosecution had confused the old with the new district. The new district, though having the same name, was entirely new, and it was perfectly clear that, up till June 30th next this is a licensing district m which liquor may he and is lawfully sold. His Worship said he could see nothing to stop a conditional license being granted m the present district. Mr Purnoll admitted that the position was an a.nomalous one; but undoubtedly what lie had stated was according to law. His Worship said that if such were the case, and this was a licensing district, all the powers of the Licensing Act could be exercised hero. He thought that m a er.se like the present it was a pity that the Crown Prosecutor was not present. I Sergeant Fouhy asked if the Magistrate would adjourn the case. His Worship said lie would not m any case give his decision on the point before him that day. find would want to go into it very fully" before doing so. Leaving this point out of consideration, he was of the opinion that a sufficiently strong case had been made put against the defendant to call for a dofence. Mr Purnell, after dwelling en the various features of Ihe case, called — Edward George Crir-p, a solicitor practising m Aslibiirton, who said that he knew Whitaker very well and was m lii.s house about three minutes before the arrival of tlr.; police on the day the search was made. Mr Whitaker ur.s writing when witness entered and asked him to wait. He stepped over to where some other men were standing at the counter. Witness did not have any whisky while m the store, neither did anyone else to his knowledge. In that portion of the store m which he stood he saw bacon, crockery ware, cheese and glasses. All wh;> were prei sent at the time were men of means. Witness was well acquainted with AVhitaker and had often jecn farmers at his store. By Sergeant Fouhy: He was m the store only about three or four minutes. He did not hear the Sergeant say that he had a warrant to search for liquor. When the police went behind the counter he went out. , He did not think that he had been m Whitaker's store twice the day previously, but lie might have been m before because he had some business to do , witF Mr Whitaker. He was not m the habit of going to the store six times a day. He did not visit the store regularly, and for two months he had not been there at all, having had no reason to go. He would swear that he had not been m Whitaker's house six times on any one day for the past month. He did not go there for whisky. Ho had sometimes shouted for Whitaker, who would return the shout. He had visited the. defendant on professional business. He had visited other places reputed to be sly grog-shops. By Mr Purnell: He had appeared m Court for people charged with sly grogselling and had to visit his clients m their houses. This accounted for his being m places whore liquor was sold. After hearing the evidence of George Wilson, John Hampton, Joseph Miles, and James Wilson, for the defence, and that of the defendant, Albert Whitaker, the Magistrate said that he could not convict, though he thought the police quite justified m prosecuting, lie dismissed the charge. CIVIL BUSINESS. Judgment was given for plaintiffs m the following civil cases: l)r Boyd v. Patrick Fitzgerald, claim 10s and costs as; W. H. Ku!e v. Joseph Hillgrove, claim £C> 10s od, and 23s Ja costs; same v. Geoffry Porter, claim £11 17s 3d, and 30s 6d costs. The Magistrate refused to make orders m three judgment summons cases brought before him. The Court then adjourned.