CHRISTCHURCH.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 10147, 21 September 1898, Page 2

CHRISTCHURCH.

Tuesday, September 20. (Before R. Beetham, Esq., S.M.) Alleged Breach of the Licensing Act. —Peter Miller, formerly licensee of the New Brighton Hotel, was charged with having permitted drunkenness on the premises. Inspector Broham conducted the prosecution, Mr Kippenberger appeared for the defendant. Constable tflewellen stated that, about 4 p.m., on September 2nd, he was on the footpath in front of the hotel, and beard a man stagger out and fall on the verandah. Witness went into the hotel and found a man named Oakley lying on the floor ; he was' very drunk, and a small out in his head was bleeding. Witness helped to drag him.round to the back of the house, where he was laid on his back. George Hunt, pier-keepsr, stated that he saw Oakley on the pier an hour or two before the incident related by Constable Elewelren.' They played two games of draughts together... Oakley had had some liquor, but was not drunk. Wm*. Oakley stated that he had two glasses of spirits in the hotel on the morning of the 2nd inst., but none ,in the afternoon. The barmaid refused to serve him, telling him to go home. Ho started, but sat down on a form outside and fell asleep. On getting up, he tell, and having cut himself, was taken into the hotel. This was all the evidence. Mr Kippenberger said that he would ptove that Oakley had not been served in the hotel while drunk, and that he did not get enough there to make him drunk. Mr Beetham said he need not trouble himself. There was not evidence enough to warrant .conviction, and he dismissed" the case. Alleged Larceny.—Giloert or Geoffrey Fleming was charged with stealing a bicycle tool bag and tools, valued at 10s, the property of -F. Andrews. The accused had sold the bag to a, second-hand goods dealer j but..there was.no other evidence against him, and be was'discharged. Alleged Indecency. — Fredk. Alcomb *as charged with having, in Riccarton, on September 17bh, indecently exposed himself. On the application of the. police he was remanded till September 24th. Trespassing with Dog and Gun.—•William Austin and George Drinkwater admitted having been .iound trespassing in the pursuit of game on the Cashmere estate, and were fined each £1, with costs 9a. ' The " Gigantic ;Art Union."—George McAlpine was charged with having obtained on June 20th, from T. S. Manson, ss, by a false pretence. Mr Stringer appeared for the police, to prosecute, Mr Kippenberger for the defence. The evidence giveja. in support of the charge was similar to that produced in a case against the accused heard on Sept. 6ta, of which a very full report was then published. In both cases tickets had been paid for in the belief that they gave chances m a lottery, or Art Union, in - which were to (be drawn for 810 prizes of pictures, worth in all £2840, The prosecution ". alleged that ' the pictures' were not in existence." On the" present charge the accused was committed lor trial, the original bail .being, again accepted, the accused in £100 and two sureties in £75 each. ;- The accused was. then charged under Section 18, of the Gaming and Lot: teries Act, witQi selling to T. S. Manson, tickets in,a lottery,'known as the "Gigantic Art Union." Mr Stringer for the prosecii: tion, Mr. Kippenberger for the defendant, who, admitting the facts; pleaded that he had received-from the -Colonial.Secretary a permit toehold the lottery. The case for the prosecution was that, the permit had been obtained by misrepresentation, and was invalid. Mr Kippenberger argued that tiiere had been no misrepresentation, and the accused believed he had a right to hold the lottery. Judgment was held over. A Peculiar Case.—Margaret Reed Ryder, for whom Mr Bruges' appeared, applied for a separation from her husband, under the Married Persons Summary Separation .Act. Her husband did not appear. Mrs Ryder stated that she was married at Dunedin there was ho issu& by marriage. Shortly after marriage her husband began a course of ill-treatment. He beat her, was often drunk, and kept the company of other women. After six months of this, Bhe being in feasor him, left him, returning to her mother. He followed and made many disturbances. She then, in February, 1895, came to Christchurch, and after a time went through the marriage ceremony with a-man named Bennett. She was prosecuted, and received a sentence for bigamy. From tho time she left her husband, he had not contributed anything >to her- sup? < port. When he was out of gaol—which wa* seldom—ho found her out and threatened her. She was now living with Bennett as his wife. Mr Beetham said he did not altogether like .this business. The Act said that no order shall bo granted to a woman who has been proved to nave committed adultery. But here was a woman who was living in open adultery, and. had actually served a { sentence for bigamy. The Act certainly I provided that, if the husband by his misconduct conduced to the adultery, an order might be granted. It might "be the hus-I band, in this case, by his neglect and cruelty ' did" conduce to the adultery, but there was only the woman's statement to go upon. Mr . Bruges said, Mrs Ryder's mother could prove | the personal cruelty, and. there were the records of the gaols which could be produced; it was a matter of expense. Mr Beetham said that would be good evidence. Why I did not the'woman, go for a divorce? Mr Bruges said she could not afford it, Oesides, the Act. seemed specially designed to meet such cases as hers, An adjournment was then made till September 27th, for the production of further evidence. •'