MAGISTERIAL

Timaru Herald, Volume XIC, Issue 13434, 5 November 1907, Page 6

MAGISTERIAL

TIMARU'.—NOVEMBER 4th, 1907. (Before Mr G. A. Wray, S-'M.) A CASE WITHDRAWNHarry Heron was charged with failing to comply -with a. maintenance order. Mr Emslie appeared for defendant and asked that the case be withdrawn as the arrears of maintenance had been paid to the informant's solicitor. His Worship granted the request-. LICENSING ACTS. John Lumley Manning, a prohibited person, was charged with being :n possession of liquor, and Henry Burns was charged for procuring liquor for Manning, knowing that he was prohibited. Both pleaded not guilty. Mr Sargent appeared for Burns, and Sub-Inspector Green conducted the case for the police. Constable Harvey said that on the 29th October he was coming along Sophia, street and saw the two accused with a bottle of b?er. Manning was under the influence of drink and Burns had the bottle in a bag by his side. The latter was sober. Witness did not see any drinking, and Burns had said he did not procure the liquor for Manning, the prohibited person. To Mr -Sargent: It was conceivable that the defendants were simply conversing together. To His' Worship : WitnorG had previously warned Burns that Manning was prohibited. J. Reilly, lieens-f? of the Melville Hotel, said Burns had procured a bottle of liquor at his hotel on the evening of the 29th. To Mr Sargent: It was possible that the bottle produced was not the same on© as Burns procured. A. Watetaff paid that on the night in question lu- saw Manning by himself by Carlton's coal-yard, apparently waiting

for someone. About a quarter of an hour later he saw Burns and Manning in a vacant- section at the junction of Sophia and Theodocia streets. They were taking turn about at a large bottle of beer, of the size and.shape of the one produced in Court.

To Mr Sargent: Would swear both defendants • were drinking, even if they denied it themselves on oath. The . defendants gave no evidence. Mr Sargent, on behalf of Burns, said the information as laid against Burns dealt only with the procuring of liquor, and not of giving it; and there was a possibility that, the bottle procured was not the one given to Manning and produced in Court. The defendant Burns.denied that the liquor was procured for Manning. His Worship said there was to his mind no doubt, that Burns had supplied liquor to Manning. There was evidence of \yitnccses that, the defendants were seen together with the liquor and were seen drinking, and - the fact that Bums had been warned by the police not to supply liquor to Manning made: the. offence still worse. ' Bums would be fined £5 and costs 7s, in default four weeks imprisonmnent, and Manning £3 and costs or three weeks' imprisonment. The police would give defendants reasonable facilities for paying the fines.