ALLIGED BREACHES OF TEE LICENSING ACT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCIII, Issue 10599, 7 March 1895, Page 3

ALLIGED BREACHES OF TEE LICENSING ACT.

CASES DISMISSED. At the Christchurch Magistrates Court yesterday, before Mr R. Beetham, S.M., Christian Klingenstein was charged with having, on Feb. 9, unlawfully _ permitted drunkenness to taka place on hia licensed premises, known as the A 1 Hotel, at the corner of Oashol and Colombo Streets, namely, by allowing one Mary Miller to remain on such premises in a state of intoxication. Inspector Eroham appeared to prosecute, and Mr Byrne appeared for the defendant, who denied the charge. Isaac Henry Pentecost deposed that, on the morning of the data in question he was passing the A 1 Hotel and saw a man and a woman fall out of the door of the hotel on to the footpath. A struggle ensued between them and the woman got into the hotel a second time. Next saw the man dragging the woman out of the hotel. The man got her out, bub she got away and again went into the hotel. She was brought out, aud the man who was with her managed to get her into a trap. Witness was certain tho woman was very drunk at the time. _ In cross-examination the witness stated that tho man who was with the woman was not Blueing her in any way whatever. From the appearance of the woman witness concluded that she was very drunk when she fell out of the hotel. Charles Mills gave corroborative evidence. Annesley Bull, Charles Ives, and George 'Kerr stated that they saw the woman drunk in the A 1 Hotel on the date named. Henry Burton deposed that ho went to theAl Hotel about 8 a.m. on Saturday, Feb. 9. Went into the hotel partly on business and partly to sea Mrs Miller, whom he found in the back bar. Asked her to come home, but she refused. Then forced her out of the hotel and told her to get into hia cart. She attempted to step into the cart, but turned round and ran into tho hotel. Witness followed her, brought her out, and carried her into the cart. She was not drunk. The woman was witness’s housekeeper. Mary Miller deposed that she went into the A 1 Hotel about 7 a.m. oa Feb. 9, and had a glass of port wine. She remained in the hotel a few minutes and then loft. She had another glass of wine at the Oxford Hotel, and returned for tho purpose of getting some moat at a butcher’s shop near the A 1 Hotel. After getting the meat she went over to the A 1 and ordered another glass of wine. She had not drunk the liquor when Burton came into the hotel and requested her to go homo. She refused to go, and Burton caught hold of her dress and pushed her out of the door. She was not drunk that mornings This was all the evidence for the prosecution. Mr Byrne submitted that there was no case to answer. At the request of the Magistrate the defendant gave evidence. He stated that he tried to get tho woman Miller out of his hotel on tho date in question. He did not see tho commencement of the disturbance j Miller was not drunk. Tho Magistrate said there was no evidence to show that the defendant had sold liquor to the woman while she was in & state of intoxication or that he had permitted drunkenness to take place on hia premises. The case would bo dismissed. George Henry Pierce was charged with unlawfully keeping open his licensed house known rd the Bower Hotel, New Brighton, during the time such house should be closed, on Fob. 16. Mr Russell appeared for the defendant, who denied the charge. William Hammett, a builder and member of the Avon Licensing Committee, deposed that on Saturday night, Feb. 16, about 10.55 p.m., ho was passing tho Bower Hotel and saw the bar lit up and the door open. The place should have been closed at ten o’clock. Went into the bar and saw two men there. Mr Russell stated that the facts of the case were very simple. The defendant closed hiii hotel at 10 p.m. on Feb. 16, and retired to bed about 10.45 p.m. Shortly before eleven o’clock two boating men from Christchurch knocked at the front door. The defendant got out of bod, and the men asked to be supplied with a glass of liquor prior to retiring for tho night. On tho previous day Mr Choesnmu bad sent a letter to the defendant, stating that he and another gentleman wished to stop at tho hotel oa Saturday night, and would probably arrive about eleven o’clock. The letter failed to reach the defendant in time, and he was not aware that the two gentlemen were coming. Evidence in support of this statement was given by the defendant and W. H. Cheasman. The Magistrate said that the defendant was entitled to supply the men with liquor, but perhaps it would have been better had ho taken them into a private room, instead of lighting up the bar. Ha (the Magistrate) was not disposed to convict under the circumstances, and the case would be dismissed.