CITY POLICE COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18563, 25 May 1922, Page 9

CITY POLICE COURT

Wednesday, Max 24. , (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) Breach of Order.—James Beattie Jury pleaded guilty to a breach of prohibition order on March 15.—Sub-inspector Eccles said defendant, while driving past the Shiel Hill Hotel; saw Eric 'Clark. ■ iho son of the licensee, and called him out to pay him an account. Jury then asked Clark for 3s worth of whisky, which the latter brought out in a small soda-water bottle and gave to him. —Defendant was fined 20s, with costs (7s), in default seven days’ imprisonment. Supplying the Liquor.—Henry Eric Clark (Mr Hanlon) was then charged with supplying the liquor to Jury.—Jury gave evidence as to purchasing the whisky from Clark. His sister, who was driving the trap on the day in question, said she saw Clark give her brother a bottle with something like whisky in it. This was about 6 o’clock in the evening.-—To Mr Hanlon: They did not stop at the hotel before 1 o’clock that day; it was either just before or just after 6. —Robert Jury said bis brother gave him a nip of whisky that day from a soda-water bottle. This was four or five miles from the Shiel Hill Hotel.—Constable Meiklejohn said that Clark had admitted knowing Jury was a prohibited person, but. denied having sold him liquor.—Mr Hanlon pointed out that there was a serious discrepancy as to the time the account was paid by Jury to Clark, defendant affirming that this was done shortly before 1 o’clock in the day. The evidence, too, did not hold together in many other important particulars. He called defendant, who said Jury asked for 2s worth _of whisky, but witness refused to supply him. Jury had asked for witness’s mother, but she was in town. Whisky was occasionally sold in small soda-water bottles. —Robert Colquhoun Clark (licensee -of the hotel and father of defendant) said his wife was home that day, and it was while he was relieving her in the bar at lunch time that the Jurys called. No soda-water bottles were kept in the bar.—Michael Fahey, who was in the hotel when the Jurys called, said it would not bo earlier than 20 past 1 when he was there. Defendant remarked that Jury had a cheek asking for liquor after having taken a prohibition order out against himself.— The Magistrate said that notwithstanding discrepancies in the evidence, he was satisfied that the story of Jury and his sister was a true one. On the other hand there was a fatal disagreement in the evidence of Clarke senior and defendant.—Defendant, was fined £5, with costs (11s), and witnesses' expenses (£1). Selling on Sunday.—Thomas Patterson (air Hanlon) pleaded guilty to being found on licensed premises on Sunday May 7 Sub-inspector Eccles said defendant was found by Sergeant Murray in the bar of the Jcean Beach Hotel being supplied with a bottle of beer by the licensee.—Defendant was fined £2. with costs (7s).—Martin Quirk, the licensee of the hotel, was then charged with exposing liquor for sale during prohibited hours.—Mr Hanlon appeared for defendant and pleaded guilty.—Subinspector Eccles said that seven other men (lodgers) were in the bar at the same time. Defendant had been before the court in November last, but the conduct of the licensee had been good since. Mr Hanlon said defendant bad opened up the bar to supply the boarders, and Patterson who took all his meals at the hotel, was supplied out of friendliness.—Tho Magistrate said licensees must see tha/ the law was strictly observed, particularly when they themselves were present. In tho present case there had been no suggestion of promiscuous drinking by persons not authorised to be supplied. Had there been so he would have endorsed the license. Ho would however, impose a substantial penalty.—Defendant was fined £lO, with costs (7s) —A second charge of selling liquor was withdrawn.

Assault on a Girl.—Charles Alex. Moore pleaded guilty to assault on a girl on May 22. Sub-inspector Eccles said that accused who was of very small stature, was nineteen years of age. The offence was committed at St. Clair while accused was canvassing for orders for wood. While the matter was being investigated bv the police the youth bolted. Afterwards, when his father was bringing him to the house, he again bolted, but was chased and arrested. He had previously been committed to the Caversham Industrial School, from where he had absconded. Later he was sent to eiaroa, hut he again bolted. Prom his (the sub-inspector’s) observation he would say the youth was weak of intellect.— I Tho accused’s father entered a plea for his boy, who, he said, was not rormal.—The MagiVtrate remanded the youth for a week, in order that a report from the Probation Officer might be obtained