MAGISTERIAL.

Press, Volume L, Issue 8581, 7 September 1893, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. j Wednesday, September 6. (Before R. Beetham, Esq., R.M., and R. Westenra, Esq. , J. P. J j Drunkenness. — Richard Wallbnrton, ■ May Mitchell, and Ethel Smith were each fined 10s or forty-eight hours' imprisonment, and a female first offender 5s or j twenty-four hours' in gaol. Failing to Admit the Police.—Thos. B. Gaffhey, licensee of the New Zealander Hotel, was charged with having on Sunday, j August 6th, failed to admit Sergeant Wil- j son without unnecessary delay. Inspector Broham prosecuted, and Mr Stringer appeared for the defendant, who he said admitted the charge. The facts of the case ; were that the licensee had staying at his '< bouse Edwards, better known as the American salesman, who with his assistants held a sale in the Tuam Street Hall up to 12 p.m. on the Saturday and had ordered supper to be served at the Hotel after that time. The assistants and some friends attended, and after they had been engaged some time there came a knock at the door. Defendant asked the company to make less noise and then admitted the Sergeant, and the delay would not have been more than two or three ; minutes. He admitted that defendant should have caused no delay. The hotel had been well conducted and no previous charge had been laid against defendant. Under the circumstances and as it was optional with the Bench, be (Mr Stringer) asked that the fine should be nade as light as possible and the license not endorsed. Inspector Broham asked that Sergeant Wilson's evidence should be heard. Sergeant Wilson deposed that at seven minutes past one a.ni., on Sunday, August 6th, he' went to the New Zealander Hotel, the bar and bar parlour of which were lighted up. Witness knocked with his hand and then with his baton, and after some minutes' delay the defendant answered the door and said "who's there." Witness answered " the police," and demanded admittance. Defendant "all right" and then went away. After some further delay during which the noise subsided; the lights in the bar parlour were turned out and those in the bar turned down. After this a man came to the door and drew the bolt and witness entered. He saw 8 men in the place and 4 others who were admitted not to be boarders, and there was no sign of drinking going ou. In cross-examination witness did not deny that the statement made by Mr Stringer was correct. Mr Beetham said he had come to the conclusion that there were two classes of cuses in which perjury was committed, deliberately and with malice aforethought. The one class was counected with horses and the other with public houses, everything being done, to screen those who supported the houses or supplied the liquor. It was an easy thing to know when a man was perjuring himself, but it was another matter to prove it. In this case there was no evidence of liquor being sold or drunk, but during the delay it was possible for all evidences to have been removed. There was no doubt that the defendant had broken the- law, and he should have known it. The fact that this hotel had been well conducted for three years would weigh with the Bench in reference"to an endorsement on the license ; moreover, as it had been pointed out that it was a case in which endorsement was optional by the Bench, defendant would be fined the maximum amount of £5 and costs, without endorsement. Protection Order.—Maria Shailer, for whom Mr Deacon appeared, applied for an order protecting her earnings from her husband, F. Shailer, and giving her the custody of the two children. After hearing evidence, the Bench made the order as prayed, A Fencing Case.—Jas. Johnston applied to the Court for an order compelling Thcs. Hughes to put up a legal fence, he having failed to do so after proper notice had been given. Mr Joynt appeared for the complainant, and Mr Stringer for the defendant. Complainant deposed to holding property adjoining defendant's, a portion of which was. divided by a sod bank and gorse fence. This was in a had state of repair, and not of suff cient strength to Steep soufc stock. Some tiuwago complainant had-his half of the fence improved by the addition of wire placed on the top of it. Defendant, ou the other hand, placed his wire fenciug in such a position, and built in such a style that it was practically useless to keep out stock. For the defence, it was urged that defendant's part of the fence was in good condition and thoroughly stock-proof. His Worship thought that there was not the least ground on which to sustain plaintiffs contention. The case would be dismissed ; plaintiff to pay costs. . Maintenance. —Mark Coombs, Richard Coombs, and William Coombs were charged with failing to support Mary Ann Coombs, a lunatic. Mark Coombs was ordered to pay 7s 6d a week, and Richard and William Coombs 2s 6d a week.—Fredk. Genet, in arrears with his contributions to the support of his four children, pleaded that he had not had means since being released from gaol, and the case was adjourned for a month. Mr Bruges appeared on behalf of defendant.—George Boakes was charged with deserting his five children, and failing to contribute towards tlieir support. Mr Hoban appeared for defendant, and Mr Cresswell for* complainant. The ca?2 was adjourned for. one month to allow of some arrangement being come to.—Jos. Mcllroy, a youth of about eighteen, was charged with failing to contribute towards the support of his mother, Susan Mcllroy. The case was dismissed, there being no evidence to warrant an order being made.