LICENSING COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume I, Issue 30, 6 December 1878, Page 2

LICENSING COURT.

« . FOXTON. Wednesday, Dedember 4. (Before It. Ward, Esq., R.M., and E. S. Thynne and J. F. Rockstrow, Esqs., J.P.s). JUXCTIOy HOTEL, SANSOX. Sub-Inspector Goodali objected to the license of Joseph. Oakley being continued for the Junction Hotel, Sanson, on the grounds of a disturbance having occurred at the hotel, in which Oakley struck two men with a bottle ; and also on account of a man named W. B. Batt boing supplied with spirits whilst suffering from delirium tremens. Mr Staite appeared for the licensee. The license was handed into Court. Eobert Cook, a laborer, deposed that he was drinking at Oakley's hotel on the 14th September with several other men; after Beveral rounds of drinks had been had, Oakley said witness owed 2s, and ordered him out ; a quarrel ensued, during which Oakloy struck him on the head with a bottle ; he bled very much, and was laid up for a week ; he had had 8 glasses of beer, and had £1 when he entered the hotel, but nothing when he left ; had no drinks any where else that day ; a man named Thomas was also injured by a glass aimed at witness ; the quarrel occurred between 8 and 9 p.m. ; as long as he had money, Oakley continued to serye him. Witness was subjected to a severe cross-examination by Mr Staito, ia which he admitted having fought with a man named Matthews alter leaving Oakley's. By the Bench— -The broken portions of the bottle fell over his head when struck; did not receive the blow while struggling with Matthews j he got a bottle of whisky that day, but it was not opened until after. The Court then adjourned for dinner. On resuming, Robert Clements deposed that he was at Oak*

ley's that night;, but was not present when the row occurred ; saw Cook next day with his head tied up ; the men were about half-drunk when witness left. Cross-examined by Mr Staite — Did not hear Oakley refuse to serve move drinks ; witness said he would not take any more drinks until Cook paid for previous ones. By Mr Goodall — Heard Cook refuse to pay for the drink the stableman had. The Inspector deposed that Oakley had told him the men were ejected by him, owing to their refusal to pay for the drinks; the house had had a good name until this affair. Constable M'Anulty, of Bulls, deposed to Cook having informed him of the row. W. B. Batt was called by the police, but he refused to answer almost every question put to him, the object of tho police being to prove that Oakley had supplied him with diiuk, whilst suffering from delirium tremens. Witness stated that he was subject to tits, which were not caused by liquor; the charge laid against Oakley regarding himself was not true; he had always baen treated well at the house. A. Hedges deposed to knowing Batt; he had seen his (witness's) j ifither supplied with drink while drunk at Oakley's, but could not say who served him. G. Hedges (father of last witness) deposed that lie had never seen Batt supplied with driuk when intoxicated ; witness had never been chunk at Oakley's, and if anyone said he had, it was not true; witness refused to say how much he had spent in driuk at Oakley's since he had sold his farm. Constable M'Anulty, re-called, de* posed that Hatt had told him he. received £407 from home three or four months ago, but did not know how he stood ; he had lent some money. Mr Staite, in opening the case for the defence, regretted that in this instmce the police had been made the means of gratifying private spite towards a man who had acted as a hotelkeeper for 25 years, without any such charge being brought against him. Joseph Oakley, the defendant, gave evidence that (Jook and seyeial other men were drinking ac thqjiouse, and that as they did no*« pay for the drinks he refused to serve them again ; whereupon Cook began howling and screaming, and wished to fight; he determined to clear the bur, but Cook struck him on the chest ; he seized a bottle, and accidentally hit Thomas, another man ; the men afterwards started fighting . 6utside, right under | some horses' feut ; also again, over at I the store ; he had never been charged before a Court before, and had kept licensed houses for 25 years ; regarding Batt, there was no foundation for the chargo ; Batt had not bsen extravagant. Cross -examined by Mr Goodall— Had never seen Batt drunk ; witness had not intended to strike Cook, merely to put him in fear. John Tompkins, a storekeeper at Sausou, deposed to Oakley's hotel being well conducted ; he had dressed Cook's wound on the evening in question ; it must have been caused by a sharp instrument— a bottle could not have done it. F. H. Caverhill, agent at Sanson for the Bank of Australasia, deposed to having seen the quarrel ; the house was well-conducted; he knew Batt, who was subject to fits, but had never seen him incapable through drink. J. P. Eagles, agent of the Bank of New Zealand, gave corroborative evidence of a general character for the defence. John Fagan and Sydney Osborn also gave corroborative evidence. The Bench returned the license, as they considered that Oakley was justified in clearing the house, but was indiscreet in using the bottle. With reference to the charge regarding Batt, the evidence was not sufficient to support it. However, they considered the police justified in bringing the matter forward.