THE COURTS.-TO-DAY

Evening Star, Issue 11681, 13 February 1902, Page 4

THE COURTS.-TO-DAY

CITY POLICE COURT. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., 8-M.) Drunkenness. —Alfred Gore and David Stedman were each fined 10s or forty-eight hours' imprisonment; and a first offender 5s or twenty-four hours. An Indigent Child.—David William Blacklow was brought up as being a child within the meaning of the Industrial Schools Act. —The Sub-inspector said that the mother of the child was only sixteen years of age. The father- lived near Roxburgh, and an order had been made against him for the payment of 5s a week- The mother, however, found that this was insufficient, and she now wanted the child sent to the Industrial ScbooL—His Worship said that someone might take charge of the child, and the mother could, when she obtained a situation, help to pay something herself. He declined to make an order.

The Licensing Act —John Laffey, licensee of the Otago Hotel, was charged with, on the 18th of January, exposing liquor for sale. Mr Solomon defended. —Mr Fraser, who appeared for the prosecution, explained that Sergeant Lyons and Constable Russell were on duty in Rattray street at about a quarter to twelve on the night in question. Their attention was drawn to the hotel by three men leaving the house, and by the upstairs part of the premises, where the private bar was situated, being lighted up. There was another bar downstairs, and a bar parlor which had a counter in it. A connection was maintained between the main bar and the bar parlor by a double sliding door. Tie police went to the hotel and knocked for admission. They were admitted by the ni.aht porter, and on going, along the passage their attention was attracted by the barmaid being behind the counter in the bar parlor, which was lighted up, with a towel in her band. The door leading from the bar parlor into the bar was open. There were nine men in the bar parlor. Six were leaning on the counter, one was under the influence of liquor, and two were sitting at the table with liquor in glasses before them. There were also two long glasses of beer on the counter in the bar parlor. The licensee was standing close to the two men who were sitting down, and the barmaid was behind the counter. Sergeant Lyons said to the defendant : " What is the meaning of this girl being in the bar T and Laffey repDed : "She is out of the bar, sergeant" The girl then left the counter in the bar parlor, closing the door which connected with the main oar. The constable asked heT what she meant by closing the door, and told her to reopen it, which fhe did. When questioned the defendant admitted that some of the men were not boarders. The police then left the room to go upstairs, whereupon the defendant pressed the button of a bell which connected with upstairs. When the police reached upstairs the place was in darkness. The names of some of the men present were taken by the police, but they did not give their proper names.— Evidence was given by Sergeant Lyons and Constables Russell and Hanson. —Mr Solomon pointed out that the information was one of exposing liquor for sale. There were three offences that could be laid against a hotelkeepcr under circumstances which applied to this case. He could be charged with either selling drink, keeping liin house open for the Kile of drink, or with exposing drink for sale. It was quite clear, taking the judgments of two different Judges—.Justice Williams in the case Regina v. Biggins, and Justice Edwards m Hie cape of White v. Nestor—that both of them adopted the same view that His Worship had applied to these cases on t more than one occasion. All the 'evidence that had been placed before the Court would be applicable to any large rttablisbment trading in the colony. There was nothing different taking place, except that the barmaid was in the bar, other than might be found openly conducted in the Grand Hotel in Dunedin, in Warner's in Cbristchtrrch, and in fhe Royal Oak in Wellington. Such a state of affairs invariably existed, and was carried out lonorably and openly. There wu-s nothing in the Licensing Act to prevent drink being sold at any honr of the night to either a lodger or a traveller, and there was nothing to prevent the bar being open so that persons couM see the drink while it was being sold. The offence at law was l'.ot tho exposure of the drink, but the exposure of drink for sale. As Mr Justice Williams put it in tie case of Regina v. Biggins, what the Act meant was that it must be made patent that drink was exposed for sale, and could be purchased in an unlawful manner. As for the upstairs part of the building being lighted up before the police entered, and then heing in darkness later on, nothing could be more reasonable than that the three men whom the police saw leaving the house came from upstairs. So far as the downstairs was concerned, there were nine men in the house, seven of whom were boarders. The other two were with their friends. That there were two drinks sold was perfectly true. The barmaid would say that she supplied two glasses of beer for boarders after eleven o'olock. Laffey told the two men that it was after eleven o'clock, and that they had better drink up and get away. One of the men said he was going to stop in the house, but the defendant told him that he could not —that every room was occupiedAll through Laffev acted frankly and honestly. When the man told the police that he was a boarder the defendant said that that, was not true. As for the girl .heing in the bar, the licensee thought that white she-was behind 4he counter in tbe*Jbar pat- .,

lor he was within hie rights, bat of coarse he was wrong, and he would plead guilty to that charge when it came before the Court.—Witnesses for the defence were then examined.—John Laffey, being sworn, said that drinks were served three or four minutes after eleven o'clock. The shandygaffs had been standing on the counter with froth upon them since eleven o'clock until the constables came in. He pressed the bell in order to sammon the night-watch-man, so thai the man could let the police out. The sergeant asked him if the girl was in the bar, and he replied that that wasn't the bar, but only the commercial room, off the bar. The police were there for five minutes only.—The next witnesses were Edward Trytkall, Peter Adams, James Robertson, and Annie Power (barmaid of the hotel). —Mr Solomon said that he would plead guilty to the second charge of employing a girl after hours, and the Crown Prosecutor said that he would withdraw the third charge, of selling liquor after hours.—His Worship said he would reserve his decision in the first case, and withhold his decision in the second until he had dealt with the first. The Court was sitting when we went to press.

PORT CHALMERS POLICE COURT (Before Mr"T Mill, J.P.) No Means of Support. —John William Matson alias John Mattheson pleaded guilty to a charge of having no visible means of support.—-Sergeant Geerin stated that during yesterday the accused's conduct was very unbecoming. When spoken to by th* polios he promised to leave the town. About 8.30 p.m., while Constable M'Quarrie was on duty, he noticed a light in the pavilion on the reclaimed land at Mussel Hay, whkh is used for athletic sports. On going lo the pavilion the constable found the win dows and doors closed, but on opening one of the latter found the accused lying on the floor, and some papers burning in the tireplace.—After bearing the evidence of Coustable M'Quarrie, accused said that he came down to the Port to look for a ship, and having no place to sleep he went Into the building.—Sergeant Geerin stated that tinre were six previous convictions against the accused for various offences in Timaru and Christchurch. His Worship sentenced Mattheson to two months' hard labor.