THE LICENSING ACT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCIII, Issue 10651, 11 May 1895, Page 3

THE LICENSING ACT.

At the Christchurch Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Sic H. W. Bishop, S.M., Dougald M’Millan, against whom a proinbifcion order had been made under Section 167 of tho Licensing Act, 1881, was charged with purchasing a glass of whisky from Patrick Burko, licensee of Bucko's Family Hotel, Manchester Street. Sergeant-Major Mason conducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr Kippsnborger appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. A. G. Ashby, a dork at the Christchurch Magistrate's Court, deposed that oa July 4, 1894, an order was made prohibiting licensed persons and others from supplying the defendant with intoxicating liquor for a period of twelve months. Countable Hobson deposed that a notice, stating that Dougald M’Millan was a prohibited person, was served at Burke's Hotel, by registered letter, on July 10, 1894. Jano M’Milkn, wife of tho defendant, deposed that she lived with her husband opposite Burke’s Hotel. Her husband was a" prohibited person. Soma days before •j April 8, ho had been drinking heavily. At 6.80 p.m. on that day she eaw iWsa go into tha private bar at Barke’a Hotel. Witness want into the hotel shortly afterwards and saw her husband in tho bar. There was a glass on the bar counter, but witness did not see j him drink anything. Witness thought 1 the glass had contained whisky. Witness | told tha girl in f*e bar that her husband was a prohibited person. The girl said ehe did not supply witness’s husband with any liquor. Mary Burke, daughter of Patrick Bnrka, deposed that she seldom served in the bar. She remembered Mrs M’Millaa coming into tha bar on April 8 and ■ accusing ber of supplying Mr M’Millan ' with liquor. Witness did not supply tha tman with any liquor. Sergeant-Major Mason said this was the ‘•case for tho prosecution. The Magistrate said that if that was the icasa there wes no case. Sergeant-Major Mason said the evidence (given by Mrs M’Millan was different from |the statement she made to the police. The case was dismissed. ■ The charge against Patrick Burke of ■having supplied M’Millan with a glass of whisky was then called. Defendant, for whom Mr Kippenberger appeared, pleaded " not guilty.” Sargeaut-Major Mason said that in face of the evidence given in the previous case it would be useless to go on. The case was then dismissed. John Nixon, a prohibited person, was charged with haying, on or about April 17, purchased a glass of beer from Thomas Popham, licensee of Coker's Hotel. Defendant pleaded ‘’not guilty.” W. G. Walker, clerk of the Christchurch Magistrate’s Court, deposed that on Nov. 19, 1894, a prohibition order was made against defendant. John Nixon, jun., deposed that on or about April 17 his father was drinking heavily. About that date witness saw his father in the front bar in Coker’s Hotel. Witness saw him drinking something out of a glass, bat could nob say what it was. Witness never spoke to his father in the hotel; he saw him drink what was in the glass, and followed him out. At this, stage Sergeant-Major Mason asked that tha witness might be treated as a hostile witness. The statement ho made to the police was different from tho evidence he was now giving. The Magistrate ordered the witness to be examined from the statement he made to the police. Witness continued; Admitted that the signature oa the statement produced was his. Ho signed it when be was very excited. In this statement tha witness had informed the police that tho barmaid told jhim that she supplied hia (witness’s) father with a glass of beer. The Magistrate told the witness to be more careful in future when making a statement to the police. Violet Stone, a barmaid in the employ of Mr Popham, deposed that ehe remembered tho defendant coming into Coker’s hotel about tho middle of April. He called for a small glass of beer, and witness served him. Defendant drank the beer. When Nixon, jun, came into tha hotel witness told him that she had supplied his father with a glass, of beer. Witness thanked him for telling her that his father waa a prohibited person. William Willis, a barman at Coker’s Hotel, deposed that he remembered _ defendant coming into the hotel about April 17 and asking for a glass of beer. Defendant’s son came into the hotel about tho same time and told witness that his father was a prohibited person. Witness refused to serve defendant with any liquor. Defendant did not give evidence. The Magistrate reserved his decision pending bearing a charge against Thomas Popham of supplying Nixon with a glass of beer; Mr Bruges appeared for the defendant, and stated that he (defendant) did not know that Nixon was a prohibited person. Nixon had never been in the hotel before, and it was only by accident that he was served. He came into the private bar and asked for a glass of beer. The barmaid, thinking he was a respectable man, and not knowing who he was, supplied him with a glass of beer. As tho defendant did not know Nison, he (Mr Bruges) would submit that the police ought not to press tha charge. The Magistrate said that under theAcfc • scrying cfi.ibQ prohibition -order waa,

sufficient notice to a publican that Nison was a prohibited person. Mr Bruges eaid that in that case he would plead guilty. Nixon was than called. Tho Magistrate said the man had a bad record. Ho had been convicted for drunkenness and other offences. He (the Magistrate) bad an utter contempt for men like the defendant, who in ■ nine cases out of tea, when a prohibition order had been made, had very little consideration for a publican. This man deserved to be made an example of, and ho would be fined the maximum penalty of JSIO and coats. The Magistrate, in referring to the charge against Mr Popham, said it was unreasonable to expect a publican to know every prohibited person with only the assistance of an order. Under the present state of things a publican was supposed to know a man although bo had not known him before. The evidence clearly showed that tha defendant did not know Nixon, whose actionhad been contemptible, to osy the least of it. . Misa Stone had given her evidence clearly, and 12 all witnesses ia these cases gave their evidence as straightforwardly as she had dons there would be less trouble ia administering tho licensing law. This waa a esae in which he (the Magistrate) should use hia discretion. The case would be dismissed. Nison waa given a month to pay the fine, and ordered to bo. sentenced to three months’ imprisonment with hard labour in default of payment.