BREACHES OF LICENSING ACT.

Thames Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 10194, 17 January 1907, Page 2

BREACHES OF LICENSING ACT.

—Ai Trio of Offenders 1. —■ Three men, William J. Martin, .Samr uel Marsdon, and Patrick. Hennessiy (the latter defended! by Mr tOlendon) were charged with various offences underl the Licensing Apt. ■ . Matftin Was charged with assisting Mar's don, ai prohibited personi, to I procure drink. Marsdon was charged •with 'bedngi m person. a,gaiin®t. whjom a I proihiilbition order had been issued he ! did procure Patrick. Hennessy to get 1 liquor-for him, and that he had liquor !mi his possession; Henneasy was charged with :pi yoouivingi beer for Marsid'on. -

All tli© defendants!, pleaded guilty. Mr Clendon said.that with regard to •Hennessy, hie had extenuating ciroumstanoesi to plead. It appeared that Hennessy was a stranger to Thiatmies, haiving comle. from tEiei ■■West Coast. H,e did not know that Marsdloni was a prohibited! person;. ho did not even know 'lumi.

Sergeant D'arbj"- said that Hemnessy was a stranger to tliia Thames, 'but hie should! hia.ve known that, if ha were «isk<ed to geb & 'bottle of foeer forl a man, there was sonieithing) peculiar, and that iie 'sho'Ujld ..hiave made inquiries before ntaiking the purehiase. As to Martin he knew that the detfendlant Miarsdon Was a pro'hilbited person.

Miartin said that Marsdon camei to: himi with iai bottle of .beer in his luamdi and asiked himi to hiarve ai drinflc. Ho (Martin) did -so, and handed baick tihe bo-ttle of ibeer tpi M'arsdon. He did not procure the 'beer for^larsdioin, and he did nob think, tli'hit hli was doing wrong in aiocepting a. drink.

Sergeant Diarchy said that in banding ,'baok the. .bettile, of beer to Marsdon tine defendant ■ was ".assisting" him to drink the tveer.

His Worship asked whether thatWas "assisting?" He thought thie fact thaifc Martin had taken some of the beer .deprived Marsdon of 'a portion, of the beer. Had Martin nob taken the beer there iwould ba,ve been more 1 for Marsdon. IMir Bush did not think ■ fchlaib what Martin had done wa.g "assisting" find 'he dismissed' the information Martin, promised never to offend again and said he would talke a prohibition order out again sit ■himself. Marsdon would be fined 20s and costs and on his application was given a month to pay the fine.

Aa to Hennossy the defendant stated that ho was ■not asked by Marsdon to piuJoha.se the biottle. of beer. He was "asked by liiisi (d'efendimt's) brother.' and! did not know Mlaa"sdon in the mia.tt.ar at ail.

His Worship said that the fact thiait i defendant vrm asked to purchase the { freer should baive told himVthafc all i vras not right and caused him to> make inquiries.- Fined 20s and costs £1 Oe Bd. —On Licensed Premises.— Josephl Windsor pleaded guilty to I being on licensed premises', but said he was only ion the premises for a, few seconds. Fined 20s and costs and given until the end of the month to pay- - .

Itolbert 'Mills was charged with being found on licensed premises, the Warwick Arms Hotel, during the currency of a, prohibition order. He did not'-''ap-pear and evidence having been given by thle licie'nseo, Arahi^aildi La Dette, to the eft'eot that jt.he defendant had snisked to ba served with drink, amd donieidi that ai prohibition order had been issued, ngna-nat him, " Mills wasfined £Ja andl costs.

' TWhei Quudri was chairg'ed with, boing t\> iproihiibi ted person she wias found on licensed premises, tha Imperial Hotel. Mir 1 C'lendon appeared dor ■ defendant and saiid that the licensee was ■ holding somo money for the defendant and siilo went on the premises to | sea Mini ais to its disp'osmjl. Sergeniii b Dauby »a,id if thVuh explanation had teen miade at the time tihie polios would probably not have taken action, —His Worship said .that prohibited "j per'sonsi could not enter licensed 1 pre- , raises even on business. He impressed this faiet on the defendant and - dismissed the information. ---Procuring and Supplying .Liquor.— Edward Case was 'cihiaii'ged "with pro- ; curing' drink andi supplying drink to a, prohibited person, William Twentyman. T!hei latter was charged "with procuring liquor from Casei I Tlie fapts of the case. Were that the two aictaused were under the influence of liquor on a recent evening; Twentyman said;'he asked Case to purchase a "bottle of ibeer forl !liiim and later on he received the liquor 1 a,nd drank portion of it. GaiSel oil the ofchier haindl, | said tha* hie had 1 been' drinking that l night and did not remember TiwentyJ rnian asking 'him to piurchiase liquloi" 1. ;Ee left the -Motel with ai '"bottle of 1 beer in his pockefc, and when he caina

to Uppei T'ollen tlrcot TwLiitym mj came up to juiu and snatched the b' ttlo from him, drank portion of it, ain\ then smasihod tho bottle. This was dbnied by Tweiityinan, who .said that lie \\'<is supplied l«y Case withi liquor. Ilia Worship fined Twentymaai £x> and ocsts Hind ga;vo him to> the end of the month toi p.iiy tho amount 1. He srid ho had given him chancia after cbanue, and really hoped that the defendant would reform. Sergeant DarTv siid defendfi.nt had been doing .his best or lato. O'.ii&'Ci Wii nneJ 20s and costs and given until the end icf the month, 1o pay tha fino. lie consented to the issue; of a prohibition orderl againbt hito.