CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 6760, 27 November 1884, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

Thursday, November 27.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.)

Drunkenness.— Margaret Quadrid and Mary Ann Han-is, for this offence, were each fined 20s, or four days' imprisonment; and Joseph Hxigltes was fined 10s, or forty-eight hours'.

Maintenance. Austin O'Brien was charged, on remand, with failing to contribute towards the support of his female child. The case was allowed to stand over until Tuesday next, arrangements for the proper maintenance of the child to be made in the meantime. David Muir, who was charged with the desertion of his two children, Albert Edward and Edith Sarah Muir, did not appear. Mr Solomon appeared for Mrs Muir.—Sergeant Bevin stated that the defendant had placed the children in the care of a person in South Dunedin, but Mrs Muir was not satisfied with tho accommodation provided.—His Worship said that he had no power to deal with that matter. All he had to do waß to see that the defendant contributed towards the support of the children. If they were not properly looked after the police could take action and have them committed to the Industrial School. Then if Mrs Muir wished to have the custody of her children she could have them licensed out to her.—Case dismissed.

Wife Desertion.— diaries Lambert was charged with deßertiDg his wife, Jane Lambert, at Napier, on the 17th November. After hearing a statement from the defendant, Hiß Worship remanded the case till Tuesday next. The Licensing Act.— Charles W. Henshall, licjnsee rf the Grange Hotel, Hanover street, was charged with selling beer during prohibited hours, Damely, at 9.50 a.m. on Sunday morning laßt. Mr Solomon appeared for the defendant.—George Loveless stated that between nino and ten o'clock on Sunday morning last he called at tho Grange Hotel and asked the proprietor, Henshall, for sixpennyworth of beer. Henshall refused on the ground that witness had had enough to drink. Witness went away, but returned about half ■ an - hour later and saw Mrs Henshall in the bar. He asked her to serve him, but she also at first refused. Eventually, however, he persuaded her to sell him the beer, and in going away he threw sixpence on the counter. He met Constable Dwyer in the street, who asked him the eontents of tho bottle, and the constable tasted the liquor, after which he accompanied witness back to the hotel. Constable Dwyer gave similar evidence as to meeting LoveleßS in the street, and tasting the contents of the bottle. He accompanied Loveless to the hotel, and while he was explaining to Mr Henshall that Loveless had

purchased the beer at hia hotel, VSKf Henshall exclaimed that it was she Who had served the liquor. Mc Hcubhall then called witness into a side room and asked him to overlook the occurronoe, as it should never take place again ; but witness refused the rcqueßt.—For the defence Charles W. Henshall deposed that Loveless was refused drink by him on the ground that it was Sunday. When tho constable called he (witness) wished to explain the facts of the cpseto him, bittthcconßtablerefused to listen. He denied that he had asked the constable to overlook the occurrence.—MrsHenßhe)',m tho course of her evidencp, stated that when Loveless asked her to serve him he slated that Ihe beer was not for himself, but for someone who had taken ill the night previous. She told Loveless that she would not sell, but give, the drink to him. After getting the beer he went to the door and threw 6d on the bar. She therefore supposed that there was a trap laid bet wee a the police and Loveless. She could not say what became of the money. She had left it lying on tho counter, and could not recollect where it went to.—His Worship, in giving his decision, said that he was convinced that the beer was not given away. The defendant would bo fined 40s and coats.—ln respect to the endorsement of the license His Worship would not decide until he understood whether certain provisions in the new Act were or were not at present in force.

A by-law case against James Oibson was adjourned, and the defendant in the case of an unregistered dog was fined la and costs,