clit roiricE court. . (Before E. If. Cdtfstf, Esq., 8.M.) of the Peace.— Witliam Anarlu’s was charged with drunkenness find with committing a breach of the peace in Walker street.—Accused' pleaded guilty to the first charge, but said be did not remember anything about the other offence.— Sergeant O’Neill stated that accused was quarrelling with his wife! He dragged her Out into the street by the hair of the bead and kicked her.-; Evidence waa given by William Thomas Gilmonr.—On the first charge accused ; was fined sVor twenty-four hours; and on the second he was fined 405,fourteen days being allowed in which to pav the money. Industeial Schools Act.— Ruth Mander Power , aged two years, was brought up as being an , indigent child within the meaning of the Industrial Schools Act.— Sergeant -- O’Neill explained that the child was illegitimate, and • that no action had been taken against the father, as' there was no corroborative evidence. The mother was a domestic servant, and the ■ Benevolent Institution had . been paying 2s 6d a week for the support of the child. ■ They expected the mother to pay the balance, but she had been 'unable to do so, and had got into debt.—His Worship dismissed the case, saying he thought that the young woman should make an effort to sdpport the child.
The Licensing' Ag¥. — Margaret Ldverly, licensee of the Gladstone Hotel, was called ttpon to' answer two charges of failing to admit Constable Patterson on the inat. Without unnecessary delay.—Mr Sim defended. Sergeant O’Neill stated that at twenty minutes past one o’clock off the morning in' question Constables Patterson and Bingham Were on duty in Maclaggau street, when they saw four or five men coming from the direction of the side door of the defendant’s hotel. In consequence of that the policemen Went to the side door, and saw a light Inside the hotel. They knocked at the door, and someone inside asked “ Who is there?” Constable Patterson answered “ The police. I demand admission under the Licensing Act.” The officers then heard the person inside leave the door, walk along the passage, and speak to someone. The policemen were then detained for five minutes or more before they gained . admission. The door was opened by the licensee’s brother (Mr Harrington), who was in charge of the hotel. The constable asked him how it was that he had not been admitted sooner, and the man replied that he could not find the key. On the police entering they saw two jfoung men in the passage, and a light in a room at the end of the passage. The door of that room waa slightly ajar, and someone waa moving inside. The constables went to the door to look in, when someone inside shut it. The officers tried to open the door, but found that it had been fastened inside. Constable Patterson asked Mr Harrington to open the door, and, he replied : “It is only the kitchen. It is all right.” The constable demanded admittance, and Harrington tried to Open the door with a key, but did not succeed in doing so. That formed the second charge named in the information. The police then commenced to go upstairs, and the moment they did so they heard people moving about. On getting upstairs they found five men sitting round a table in a room. Some of the men held cards in their hands, and the others were sitting about doing nothing. Another room waa lighted up, but nobody was there. In the next room they visited they discovered b man hiding behind the door. The fact of the police being denied admission to the house and the other room in the hotel prevented them from judging what was going on. The police, the sergeant contended, had a right to be admitted to all parte of the place.—Mr Sim j Including the licensee’s bedroom.—Sergeant O’Neill: They would not go that far.— Evidence in support of the charge was given ! by Constables Patterson and Bingham.—Mr bim opened the defence by drawing His Worship’s attention to the case of Duncan v. Dowding, which was decided by the Bench of the Queen’s Court Division in March of the present year. It was laid down by Mr Justice Cave, in dealing with this case, that the power conferred upon a constable by section 16 of the English Aob_ of 1874, which corresponded with section 184 of the Licensing Act in force r in New Zealand, on entering licensed premises Was noj, the power to enter any room at any time. The power given by the section was the right to demand admission for certain purposes only, and there must be some evidence that the state of things alleged to. exist either did exist-or were about to exist.—Hia Worship : That is in respect to private rooms—Mr Sinraaid he took it to mean with regard' to the whole of the bouse. In the oaso he had quoted the publio part of the house waa open. The. polios entered the house at half-past-ten, which waa before closing time. The general rule laiddown waa that the power given by the section was power to enter for the purpose of preventing or detecting an offence, and there must be some evidence that the state of things did exist or were about to exist. If the house was open there was, of course, no necessity for the officers to demand admission; but if it was closed the „ police, before demanding admission, must know that some offence was being committed or was about to be committed? There was no evidence of that at all. His Worship; There was evidence that the house was lighted up, and that the constables saw people leaving the place. Mr Sim; The constables did not say that they_ saw them leaving the house. Hia Worship : Coming from the direction of the house. That seemed to be one of the reasons for suspecting.—Mr Sim said he would call evidence to show that the bar was closed at eleven o’clock on the Saturday night. The night porter and Mr Harrington were working downstairs when some men knocked at the door. The night porter opened the door, but refused to admit them. They were probably the men the constables saw in the right-of-way. Shortly afterwards Mr Harrington went upstairs, and the night porter resumed his work. A few minutes later another knock was heard at the door. The porter answered it and inquired “ Who is there ?” The people ' outside replied “Police,” but the porter did not believe them, thinking that it was drunken men trying to get into the house. A short time afterwards there was another knock and a demand for admittance. The porter then realised hia position, and went for Mr Harrington, who, after going to the bar parlor for the. key, opened the door and let the police in. As soon- as Mr Harrington knew that the police were outside he opened the door, so that itconldnot be said that there was any unnecessary delay. In respect to the other charge, Mr Harrington did not know whether anyone was in the kitchen or not. Assuming that there were persons in that room and they'locked the door, it was clear from the evidence of the police themselves that Mr Harrington did his best to get into the room. The police had no right to demand admission to the room. They had just about fas much right to go there as into the licensee's bedroom. Counsel would also prove that the persons found- in the house were boarders.—Evidence waa given by James Spiers (night porter) and John Harrington.—His Worship convicted the defendant on the charge of failing to admit the police to the house without unnecessary delay. It was not clear, he said, that any breach of the law was being committed in the house, although it very* strange that there should have been so much shuffling in the place. Defendant would be - fined £1- and coats. With regard to the other charge, His Wor,ship, thought that it came. within ;the case quoted by Mr Sim. The police had no right to ,enter every part of the house. For instance, they would not have a right to enter the kitchen unless they had reasonable grounds for believing that some; breach -of the law was being committed. That cTiarge would be dismissed.
, MainteSaiice.— George Marchant was charged with failing to obey an order of the Court to pay 7a a week toward the .support of his wife, Emily Marchant. Mr Hanlon appeared for complainant, and Mr Fraser for defendant.—After evidence '’defendant was sentenced to forty-eight hours’ imprisonment. ' .
' Boralio Nelson ‘ Pine was charged wilb ; <1 \j failing to obey an order of the Coact for the maintenance of his children. The case was, withdrawn, it being understood that if defendant did nob pay up the next pay day a. fresh information would be laid against hiisu As Umcostbollableßot.— Agnes Eyers* applied to have George W. S. Eyers, a boy aider the age :of thirteen years, committed! to the Industrial School; On the grohnd that the.' child, was- uncontrollable.—Mr : Wil- ■ klnson, who- appeared for the complainant, stated that the'nrotbon-wat 'a": Widow with- two children.. She earned hfer living by washing. The boy in question would not go to school, and .whenever hj& was sent messages ’• he kept : the moneys -•; Recently he kept £2 belonging to his mother. Mrs Eyers could only afford to- pay & 6d. it week for the boy's support." After evidence His Worship said, that he. thought.. th 6* Industrial .Schoolwasthe best place for the tad. It was necessary .; under the section of the Act that the mother should fiud sectfrrty.—The ease was then adjourned for a week to enable Mr Wilkinson to communicate vtith Mr Burlinson, master of the Industrial Sfeboolj and arrange ' terms of security for the malttUaance of .the child. " - ■ ■ .. . J;
Permanent link to this item
THE COURTS-TO-DAY., Evening Star, Issue 10433, 30 September 1897
THE COURTS-TO-DAY. Evening Star, Issue 10433, 30 September 1897
Using This Item
Allied Press Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Allied Press Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.