Untitled

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 166, 13 July 1907, Page 5

A Costly Sale.—Bertram Booker, bar- | man at the Prince of Wales Hotel, was charged with supplying liquor to Robert Tait while Tait was in a state of intoxication. The licensee, Henry Booker, was also charged with permitting drunkenness on his premises. Mr W. I Fallon prosecuted, and Mx J. E. Reed de- | fended. After Sergeant Hanson had I sworn to finding Tait in the hotel bar under the influence of liquor, it was agreed that ths change against the licensee should be withdarwn, the barman pleading guilty. Defendant was fined £10 and costs. THIS DAY. Inebriate. — Charles Hamilton was fined 10/ and cab hire, in default 48 hours. Charles Holder Woods, with a previous list of seven convictions this year, went to gaol for three months on the charge of drunkenness, and was ordered, to pay £2, in default one month,! for breaking prohibition, sentences to j be concurrent. George Roberts, a prohibited person, was fined 10/ for lapsing, and £3 for the breach. Annie Sergeant, a prohibited person with a record, wa3 fined £ 1 for drunkenness, and £2 for breaking prohibition. Six others were fined for minor offences. . I I ■ Indecency.—Thomas Ward,,, was sent-' enced to 14 days for offending against the proprieties in Wyndham-street. A prohibition order was also made against j him. Undesirable Tenants.—William Mackay, William Whiteside, Stephen Codling, Michael Riley, and Elizabeth j O'Hara, pleaded guilty to being found | without. Jawful excuse on the premises of Miss Craig in- Hobson-street early this morning. Upon' being searched at i the watchhouse, a counterfeit sovereign | was discovered in the possession of; Riley. The magistrate decided that this I promiscuous invasion of untenanted j houses must be discouraged, in pursu-1 ance of which he sent the merrimakers to gaol for three months. Best for Both Parties. —The adjourned hearing of the case in which Martha E. Quelch applied for separation from her husband, Archibald Queleh, was continued this morning, when evidence was taken for the defence. Defendant denied cruelty, and brought counter evidence as to the use of bad language and neglect of her household duties by his wife. The magistrate decided that, on the evidence, it was eminently desirable that the parties should be separ-, ated, in the interests of both of them. As to the custody of the child, unless gross neglect could be established against the mother, she was undoubtedly the one most fitted to look after her own fifteen months' old infant. In this case he considered the eivdenee was not sufficient to sho-w that such neglect i had occurred. The separation was there- I fore allowed, with 15/ a week maintenance for mother and child, which was given into her legal custody.