RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4145, 3 July 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, July 2. (Before J. 0. Crawford, Esq., K.M.) DRUNKENNESS. Two men, named Payton and Turner, were fined ss. each for this offence. SUNDAY TRADING. John Mclntosh, landlord of the New Zealand Hotel, was charged on the information of the police, that he did, on Sunday, the 28th day of June, commit a broach of clause 2 of “ The Act to Amend the Licensing Ordinance, 1855.” Hr. Buckley and Mr. Ollivier appeared for the defence. Before the evidence was gone into, the former gentleman raised an objection to the effect that tho Act under which the information was laid was repealed by a new Act entitled “ The Wellington Publicans’ House Management Act, 1874,” which was assented to by the Provincial Council on the 18th of May in the present year. Ho also argued that the information did not attempt to show that the persons served with liquor were not travellers or lodgers ; and also “ that the burden of proving such lay with the informant.”

Mr. Inspector Atoheson, for tho prosecution, contended that the new Act did not come into force until the Ist of -July, and that, therefore, the offence having been committed prißr to that date, the defendant Avas liable by the Act under which the information Avas laid.

His Worship remarked that the point raised by Mr. Buckley was one which required consideration. He would therefore reserve it for that purpose. Constable Buchanan, sworn, stated that on Sunday night last his attention was directed to the defendant’s hotel by seeing a number of persona come out of the door and others going in. He looked through the window and saw a number of men in the room with glasses in front of them containing brandy, whisky, and beer. Some little time afterwards he went inside and saw in the coach office a number of men with glasses on the table. Spoke about the Sunda y trading, saying that it was a shame allowing crowds of men in and out, and that it should be put a stop to. Charles Cilfard, barman at the hotel, called for the defence, stated that on the evening in question he had two friends to take tea with him, and that afterwards he obtained permission of the landlord to get drinks for his friends before parting ; got the key of the bar for that purpose and obtained the drinks. Had not charge of the bar on Sundays, and did not sell any drinks on this occasion. Andrew Young gave evidence that on Sunday evening last he was in his booking office, next the bar in the New Zealander Hotel, with some when the constable came in. His manner was offensive. There was no drinking in his office whilst he was there.

Cross-examined by Inspector Atchcson —■ Could not swear that no drinking took place in his office that evening, as he was absent for a short time.

Mr. OUivier submitted, in addition to the point already raised by Mr. Buckley, that the evidence failed to show that those who were drinldng wore not lodgers or travellers ; or that any drinks were sold on the premises. The Bench was of opinion that the charge was proved ; but as objections as to the Acts required consideration the decision would be adjourned for a week. Marian Winkley, landlady of the White Swan Hotel, was charged with a similar breach of the Act.

Mr. Borlase appeared for defendant. Sergeant Beady stated that on last Sunday evening ho saw several men go in at the back entrance to the defendant’s hotel. Ho followed and knocked at the door for some time, but could not gain admittance. Some time after saw defendant let out by the side door two men who are notorious drunkards. He tried to get in, but the landlady locked the door in his face. Went back to the kitchen and saw a number of people still there. After some twenty minutes the defendant let him in. Ho saw twelve men in one room, and others hiding themselves behind the doors. Spoke to Mrs. Winkley about the proceedings, and she acknowledged supplying drink, asking him to overlook it this time, as it was no more than the others were doing. She said she did sell liquor, and must put up with the consequences. Cross-examined by Mr. Borlase—Hid not see any one drinking. Could not swear that any one ho know personally drank anything there.

James Tollins stated that on last Sunday night he was in the White Swan Hotel, and had a pint of beer there. Cross-examined —Bid not see any money paid. . Edward Jackson deposed that he was in the White Swan Hotel last Sunday night, and had a drink of brandy. Mrs. Winkley did not serve him. Could not exactly remember who served him. Believed it was the cook of the Stormbird. Mr. Borlaso took tho same objection that had been raised in the previous case, and also submitted that tho case was not proved. A publican had as much right as a private individual to give a friend a drink. He thought that the police had considerably overstepped

their duty in this matter. This practice of spying through windows and so forth to_ try and catch the publican in some offence, might do very well in some countries, but in a British community it should not be allowed. It was ridiculous to imagine that such conduct was part of a constable’s duty. Mr. Inspector Atcheson reminded Mr. Borlase that attention was first drawn to the hotels by the crowds passing in and out, and that it then decidedly became the constable’s duty to see into the matter. His Worship remarked that the learned gentleman’s observations on the police were more of a political nature than Police Court. If he objected to the surveillance of the police in connection with public-houses, it would be an opportunity to introduce to the consideration of the Council a Bill to that effect.

Decision adjourned for one week. Mr. Buckley, who appeared for Collins and Oalder, similarly charged, informed His Worship that they would admit the charge, for the purpose of testing the point raised by him in Mclntosh’s case.

Decision to be given with those of previous cases.

Wm. R. Hatch, of the Imperial Hotel, defended by Mr. Buckley, was charged with the same offence.

Sergeant Ready stated that last Sunday night he met a man coming from defendant’s hotel with a bottle, containing beer, under his coat; he admitted having got it at the hotel. Cross-examined by Mr. Buckley—Did not taste the contents of the bottle ; but was fully satisfied that it was beer ; could see it as it was moonlight. Wm. Fry, sworn, said that on Sunday night the constable took a bottle of beer from him, which he got at the Imperial Hotel. At first the publican refused it ; but after-wards on hearing that it was for a poor woman, made him a present of it. A witness called for the defence, corroborated the previous witness’s statement, and said that no drink was served during the evening. He saw no drink but what Hatch himself had. Case dismissed.

J. Valentine, similarly informed against, admitted the charge. Decision to be given with others adjourned,