MAGISTERIAL

South Canterbury Times, Issue 6245, 18 June 1890, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL

TEMUKA— Monday, June 16th,

(Before 0. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.)

G. Latimer was fined Is and costs for allowing his cow to wander at largo and was cautioned.

Michael McAteer, licensee of the Royal Hotel, was charged with having permitted drunkenness in his licensed house on the 23rd May last, and further with having obstructed the police in the execution of their duty. Mr Calhro appeared for the defence. Constable Morton gave evidence of being attracted by a noise in the hotel on the night in question, and finding several men in a state of drunkenness in the bar parlour, and having then gone into the bar and spoken to the licensee about the low drunken crew he had in the house. The licensee had told him to leave the house and lay any complaint before the Licensing Committee, and had then caught him by the arm and attempted to put him out, when a man named Power had come between them and had separated them. To Mr Cathro: I consider a man drunk when his conduct is very unlike his ordinary manner. Drunken men can walk. I was only in the room for a minute. I was angry but not with Me Ueer. I had been annoyed by a man outside. I told him it was a low drunken crowd be had there Ido not think I used the word “ thieves. ” Messrs Moore and Christmas were in the bar. Mr McAteer did not ask if I could insist on staying on the bouse after ho had ordered me to go out. Did not see any drinks served. Constable Egan gave evidence as to the drunkenness of four of the men in the bar parlour. John Moore gave evidence as to the consi able entering the bar and telling McAteer of the low lot in the parlour. McAteer replied that he would look after them. Both were excited, and McAteer asked the constable to go out, and also if he could remain in the house after ho had been ordered out. The constable replied “ Ho, I cannot,” and Mr McAteer then ordered him out and called him a hyprocrite and a scoundrel, afterwards going round the bar to put him out. To Mr Cathro : There was very little noise in the house, I did not see the men, but I should not think they were drunk. James Christmas said he had just gone into the bar before the constable came in. Heard no unusual noise in the bar parlour ; could hear the men talking. The constable spoke in a very excited manner. McAteer was quiet. Thomas Ollivcr : Had seen the men who appeared to have had a few drinks. There was no one helplessly drunk. Saw no glasses or drinks served. This closed the evidence for the prosecution, and Mr Cathro stated that there was no case to answer, as the men might have got drunk elsewhere. The charge of obstruction could only be maintained where an obstruction was committed in violation of the Police Offences Act. (

His Worship decided to hear the evidence for the defence. Humphrey Friol'swore that he and the other men were not drunk ; they were jolly and ia good talking humour. James Crawford stated that he passed the house as the constable went in. He was very excited in his manner, and spoke about a low drunken crowd being in the house. McAteer replied that his place was outside. Charles Oliver was walking along the street, saw Constable Morton enter the bar, and heard him say “ You have a nice school of low thieves and blackguards there.” The constable appeared to be very excited, and after the words thieves and blackguards added that Mr McAteer was a scoundrel. Mr McAteer, the defendant, said that the men were quiet and bad not been supplied with liquor since tea time. Constable Morton came in in a very excited way, and said, “ that is a low school of thieves and vagabonds you have in there, and you are one yourself." He asked him to come into a public room if he had any complaints to make and not to take away his character before his customers. The constable had said that he could not stay in the house if ordered out, and the witness then put his hand on bis shoulder and ordered him out, telling him to make any complaint to the licensing bench.

His Worship said that the evidence showed there were drunken men on tho premises, but not that they were supplied with drink. The information respecting the obstruction was bad, and both informations would be dismissed.

John Break well was charged with committing a breach of the peace, and pleaded guilty under provocation. The evidence showed that a misunderstanding arose between the accused and a young man named Harry Livery, and that Breakwell struck Lavery. The defendant having been under arrest since the previous Saturday, was cautioned and discharged. ID. Brown v. Elizabeth Powell, wife of Thomas Powell— Claim £47 15s 7d.

Mr Salmond for plaintiff, and Mr Raymond for defendant.

The claim was for building material, and the defendant having expressed her willingness to pay if time was allowed, the case was adjourned' for a fortnight to allow the parties to come to an arrangement if possible.