CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10034, 27 April 1894, Page 3

CITY POLICE COURT.

TnoasDAY, Apjiii. 26. (Before Mr B. H. Carew, S.M.)

Dbcnkknness.—William Ward (one previous conviction) was fined ss; in default, 24 hours' imprisonment.

DISOBEVi^O A PjIOHIBITIOS OIIDEB.—Wm. Robertson wits charged that, while a prohibition order ayainet bim was in force, he did obtain liquor at the Liverpool Arms Hotel on Tuesday, Apul 17.—Defendant pleaded guilty, but stated that he was ill on the day in tjuestioa, and that wan the reason he took the drink. Moreover, he Das not aware that the order took immediate effect.—His Worship stated that he did not believe the accused's story. His conduct had. beta very bad of late, ho having neglected his wife and children. He (his Worship) considered that a substantial penalty should be fixed, and consequently accused would be fined 40a, and costs ; in default, seven days' imprisonment with hard labour. —Defendant : What lime will I hava to pay the amount ?—His Worship: I think it should be paid immediately.

Sbllino Liciooh to a Pkohibited Person. —The licensee of the Liverpool Arms Hotel, in I'illeul street {Walter Robertson), was charged with Belling liquor to the prohibited person mentioned in this preceding case.—Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared . for the defendant, who pleaded guilty.—Sergeant O'Neill said that two constables s*w the man Robertson go into the hotel. They followed him iuside and saw him drinking a long glass of beer. He stated that he had got tho liquor from defendant's wife. Ths latter, on being questioned, admitted that Bhu had supplied him, bat stated that she did not know there was a prohibition order against him.—Mr Hanlon, by way of extenuation, pointed out the difficulty hotelkeepers laboured under in regard to prohibited person*. There were 25 prohibition orders existing at the present time in Dunedin and surrounding districts, and of these there were only three cases in which the persons prohibited were known to the defendant. The order against Robertson bad only been made a couplo of days previously, and Robertson was an entire stranger to the defendant's wife, who sold the liquor. As a matter of fact the two constables went into the hotel to warn the people there that Robertson, had a prohibition order existing against him, but they arrived too late.—His Worship said ho thought it right ho should take into consideration what Mr Hanlon had said, simply for fixing the amount of penalty. If he were satisfied that defendant had known the prohibited person well, then he (his Worship) would be inclined to fix a much more severe penalty. He thought a penalty of £2, and costs, would be sufficient to make the defendant more careful ia future.

Supplying a Child with Liquou.—Tho licensee of the Ayrshire Hotel, South Dunedin (Mary Ann Patterson) was charged with 'supplying 5 child under the age of 13 with liquor.—Mr Sim appeared for the defendant.— In this ca?e, which was heard a week ago, bis Worship delivered the following judgment :—

Thodefendant, who isthclicenseo of the Ayrshire i Hotel, is charged on information with supplying beer to a child apparently under the age of l 3 years, not to be consumed on the premises. The sale is proved, and that the boy is nine years and two months old. The prosecuting constable stated that he knew what was about the boy's ago, but, had he not known, the boy would have appeared to him to be between seven and eight yeara old. The defence is that the boy had been to the hotel for beer on previous occasions, and on the first occasion Mrs Patterson asked him his age, and he replied 13 years, and to a further question of how he knew that was his age he said his mother told him to say he was 13. Mrs Patterson further' said that the boy's face looked old-fashioned, and she believed that was his age. As a matter of fact, in my opinion there is nothiog in the boy's appearance to lead anyone to believe that he is anything near thirteen. On the contrary, he is veiy small for his age, and appears to be younger than he is. Ido not believe anyone could be misled by his appeiranco into thinking he was more than from eight to tea years old. Convicted and fined -10s, with costs (Us). His Worship added that there was no provision in. the act for endorsing a conviction for this offence on the license.

Adcltkhated CnEAii of Taijtab—Alexander Balfour Mercer and Hector Mercer were charged with selling a drug known as cream of tartar in an adulterated form.—The Hon. John MacGregor appeared for the defendants, who pleaded guilty. Counsel asked his Worship to take into consideration the fact that the defendants committed the offence in entire innocence. They believed that what they sold was pure. They bought it as such, and sold it simply as they bought it. There could be no doubt that cream of tartar was a drug.—Mr Haggitt did not aik for a heavy penalty in this case principally on the grounds that the defendants were charged with the same offence eorne time ago, but on that occasion tie cream of tartar was treated as a food instead of as a drug. He only wished the cane gone on with to establish tho fact that cream of tartar wa3 a drug, and that j it was an offence to adulterate it, just as it was i an offence to ad&ltsrate peppsr or auything j else. That cream of tartar was a drug was established in the amendment act of 1883. Counsel then quoted from standard medical works to prove that cream of tartar was a drug. He was perfectly willing to believe that Mercer Brothers were not aware that they were selling an adulterated drug; that they were innocent; agents, and his Worship should take that iato consideration.—Mr Fraser remarked that he appeared for Alfred James Larking, storekeeper, of South Dunedin, who was similarly chared. He suggested that beforo his Worship fixed the penalty in the first case the charge in tho second case should be read. This was done, after which counsel added that defendant was a storekeeper in a small wrvy, and was not in a position to pay a heavy penalty. The article was bought in bulk as pure, and was sold retail as such.—His Worship said that the act was to prevent adulterated articles from being sold as pure. The present cases showed the necessity of retailers getting a guarautee from merchants or else getting a portion of tfco articles analysed. Of course, there was not the same dugreo of fault attached to a seller if lie sold an adulterated article innocently v-> if he sold it with the intention of committing a

fraud, but the law cast upon him the onus of knowing what he sold, and ho could not treat the case in any other way.- The defendants Mercer Bros, would be fined £l and coats (&'£ 16s 6d), a,ild the defendant Larking £1 aud costs (£2 3.i). Vagrancy — Findlay M'lntyre wes charged with having insufficient lawful means of ftfpport.—Mr Hanlon, who appeared for the defer!dane, stiied iliat tfie l»tter had got employment up-cDUutry, anu as tlia police only wished to get these young fellows who frearierlttid brothels to lead an honest life, ho suggested trial the case should be withdrawn. He read a letter from a person up-oountry in which the accused was offered a job in connection with poifoning rabbits.—His Worship acted upon Mr Han'.on's suggestion, seeing that the accused had got workj and advised the police to withdraw tile charge; which was accordingly done. Houses of lix-famk.—Ellen Hornsby was charged with occupying a house iti Moray place frequented by,.nefaons having" no visible I means of support.—Evidence Was giten by the police to the effect that the house was frequently the scene of great disorder. Cries of "murder" fremieritly issued from the place at night time; while on one occasion two man were fighting there.—Accused v>t£s tenteneed to six weeks' imprisonment. —— Cissy Phillips vfafl charged with permitting people to conduct themselves in a house occupied by her in Moray place in a manner that offended against public order, decency, and comfort.—Accused pleaded guilty,—Evidence was given which showed that on Tuesday, 17th April, some young men ware in the house. They were singiDg and laughing and playing a piano, and generally behaving in a noisy manner, the disorder being plainly heard in the public streets—A fine of 40s and costs was inflicted. .. .... Maintenance Cases —Vfiut&ri lijmlhvirat was charged with disobeying an order of {he court whereby he was ordered to pay 5s a week towards the support of his wife.—Mr Gallaway appeared for the latter, and after evidence,, defendant was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment, the warrant to lie in court foe a fortnight tp give him an opportunity of paying up arrears, £2.—A second charge of disobeying an order for the maintenance of a child was withdrawn. Thomas Watt was charged with failing to contribute to'the support of ; his mother.—Af.er evidence, defendant was ordered topay 2s dJaweek.-- v-