AN EXPENSIVE LESSON AT BILLIARDS.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 11104, 24 October 1901, Page 2

AN EXPENSIVE LESSON AT BILLIARDS.

I*l A LYTTELTON LICENSE ENDORSED. At Lyttelton yesterday, before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.Ei Henry Bailey (Mr Beswick) was charged with allowing billiards to be played in hia licensed house, the Albion Hotel, on Sunday, September 22nd. Inspector Ellison conducted the prosecution. Constable Pratt deposed that on Sunday, September 22nd, at 2.15 p.m., he went into the Albion Hotel, as he noticed men coming out of the house. - He heard billiard balls in the billiard-room, and on entering the room found Howard Bailey, son of the licensee, and D'Arey Hamilton playing a game. Two other Christchurch men were in the room. Witness .saw Bailey strike a ball, and Hamilton had a cue in his hand. . The former said he did not* know he was doing anything wrong. The licensee just then entered the room, and the game was stopped. He said to his son, "Haven't I told you before not to play billiards on Sunday?" The son said he had. The licensee said the young men were cousins, and were only having a friendly game. Joseph Henry Box deposed that on September 22nd he was in the billiard-room when Constable Pratt came in. Two young chaps seemed to be knocking the balls about with cues. Witness was told the young men were the landlord's son and his cousin. Air Beswick, in opening for the defence, quoted cases to show ta*fc unless tbe licensee knew of the game being played, he could not be convicted of the offence. He called Henry Bailey, the defendant,- who de : posed- that after be had lunched he was in tbe backyard, and heard someone come in at the. front door. . tThe billiard-marker told witness the police were in. Witness went into the billiard-room, and found his son and,nephew playing on the billiardtable. "There was no marking. Witness had not know that any playing was going on. Witness told the young men to stop. Sarah Bailey, wife of the last witness, gave corroborative evidence. Howard Bailey, son of the licensee, said be and his cousin afterwards went into the billiard-room, andJEamilton took the balls out of the pockets and asked, "HoY do you play "at this?" Witness took a cue, and showed Hamilton, who also knocked the balls about. To. Inspector. Ellison—None of the win* dowa of the billiard-room looked on to the street. It was contrary to his father's orders that he played, D'Arey Hamilton gave similar evidence. He said he had never seen billiards, before. Joseph Edmund, billiard-marker, deposed that he was in the house when the constable came. He did not l&now anyone was playing. The Bench held that the presumption of knowledge on the part of the defendant was very strong. The act imposed a greater onus on a licensee to close his baUard-room than his bar La view of-the fact of the relationship of the "parties," he would not inflict a heavy penalty;, but fine the defendant 10sj.and costs.. An endorse* ment would follow as a matter of course. j-' Mr Beswick gave notice of appeal, '