RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume II, Issue 415, 27 August 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THIS DAY. » (Before T. W. Parker, Esq., R.M.) 1 STRAY COW. Robert Keenan was lined 4s. for allowing a cow to be at large. BILLIARDS AT AN EARLY HOUR. Gustavus L. Longford was charged with having unlawfully suffered billiards to be played iii his licensed house at 15 minutes before 5 o'clock on the morning of the 15th hist. Sub-Inspector Smith conducted tho prosecution, and Mr. O'Meagher appeared tor the defendant, who denied the charge. Constable Hawksworth deposed to having noticed that Mr. Longford's billiardroom was not closed on Wednesday morning, the 15th inst. He went into Messrs. Spence and Bee's yard, and saw billiards being played. Ho called the attention of Constable Donovan to tho matter, and they then went to the rear of the Star and Garter Hotel. The window was open, and through it they saw some persons playing billiards. This was about a quarter to 5 o'clock. In cross-examination, witness said that he noticed the lights at 1 o'clock, but did not go to the billiard-room then as ho had no witness to the transaction. He did not see Mr. Longford in the room. Constable Donovan gave coiroborativo evidence. Mr. O'Meagher said the case must fall through. The information charged Mr. Longford with suffering the game to bo played, but there was nothing to connect Mr. Longford with the game. Ho was asleep in his bed, and knew nothing of the matter. The room was rented by Mr. Hannah, who paid a weekly rental for the use of it. There had never been any complaint from persons living in tho house of any disturbance taking place in the billiard-room. The walls of the room were of stone, and no annoyance was occasioned to persons sleeping in the house. Judge Ward usually occupied the room next to the billiard-room, and ho had never made any complaint of disturbance. The hotel was closed, and two or three gentlemen were indulging in a game of billiards. G. L. Longford stated that ho was in bed at the time the game of billiards in question was being played, and was not aware that the game was going on. No complaint had ever been made to him about any disturbance taking place in the room. The billiard-room was let to Mr. Hannah, who conducted it as well as it ever had been before. Sub-Inspector Smith stated that no complaint had ever been made with regard to the manner in which the Star and Garter Hotel had been conducted during the time Mr. Longford had kept it. He was perfectly sure that Mr. Longford did not know that billiards were being played on the morning in question, and believed

that if he had known that such was toeing done, he would have put a stop to it. Mr. O'Meagher again urged that there was nothing to connect Mr. Longford with the charge of knowingly suffering billiards to be played, and said that Mr. Longford would not have allowed the game to be continued if he had known it was going on. His "Worship pointed oui that the licensee was the person liable for the billiard room being properly conducted, under the Ordinance. It was his duty to see that the room was closed at tiie proper time, and not to go to bed, and trust everything to the lessee of the room. There was this much to Le said in the defendant's favour, no complaint had ever before been made against Mr. Longford. He would inflict the nominal penalty of 10s. Mr. O'Meagher asked his Worship to raise the fine to a sufficient amount to enable the defendant to appeal against the decision. Mr. Longford felt rather Bore that he should have been selected for prosecution, while numbers of other billiard rooms were constantly kept open after hours. His Worship complied with the request, and raised the penalty to L 5 Is. Mr. O'Meagher gave notice of apjjeal. DETAINING A VIOLIN. Henry Mantell was charged with detaining a violin, the property of John Clegg. The evidence went to show that the complainant had bought the violin in question from a man named Robert Patrick for LI. He subsequently lent the violin to Patrick, who, instead of returning the instrument, re-sold it to the present defendant for 30s. The plaintiff, learning that the violin was in defendant's possession, applied to him for it, but defendant refused to give it up unless he was refunded the 10s. which he had paid for it. His Worship, after the evidence for the plaintiff had been taken, suggested that the best course to be pursued would be to lay an information against the man Patrick for stealing the violin, and instructed the police to take action in the matter.