MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5647, 17 June 1886, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH. This Dat. (Before R. Beetham, Esq., R.M., W. H. Lane, and R. Westenra, Esqs.) Drunkenness. —lnspector Pender mentioned the case of H. F. Allen, who had been remanded for medical treatment a fortnight ago. He said the man was Btill too ifl to appear. Mr Donaldson, the gaoler, said that Allen had been very ill indeed, but was now gradually recovering. The Bench granted a further remand of seven days, to be brought up sooner if recovered.—James Walsh wa3 fined 10s or forty-eight hours' imprisonment. Stealing Schnapi*s. —Hugh Ford was accused of stealing six bottles of schnapps, the property of some person unknown. When asked if he admitted the charge, he

eaid, " Oh, yes — no ; I didn't steal no gin, air." Constable Cleary said that about half-past 11 last night he Eaw accused coming out of the Scotch Stores. He ruspected something, and found on examination that accused had six bottles of Bchnapps inside his shirt, all ranged round [ his body. "When asked where he got them, 1 he replied from a shop in Victoria street, but would not say definitely. The bottlea of liquor were produced in court ; they had I sawdust about them, as if recently taken from a case. Inspector Pender applied for a remand for seven days. Mr Beetham (fco accused): "Where did you get theee schnapps from ? " Accused : " I'm not supposed to tell, your Worship." Mr Beetham: "Oh! that's all right. You are remanded for seven days." Thb Tebminus Hotel Case.— William 3 Burnip, licensee of tho Terminus Hotel, f was accused of selling " certain liquors " 3 to persons neither bond fide lodgers nor • travellers, during prohibited hours, viz., • midnight on May 29. Mr Stringer aps peared for defendant. Inspector Pender • called Eichard Chamberlain, who said : On 1 May 29 he was living in Lyttelton street, 1 about five minutes' walk from the Ter- ' minus Hotel. He went to the hotel about 1 midnight with a man named Porter j was ■ admitted, and saw five or six more persons 1 inside. Had some drink there ; believed it was beer; he shouted for others, including two girls. The drinks were paid for. Believed he .paid for them. Ada Gilbert and Agnes Poiter gave corroborative evidence. It appeared that the liquor was supplied by the night porter, who obtained it from a cupboard. John Lawson was called, but did not appear. A -messenger sent for him ascertained that he was ill in bed. Mr Stringer then admitted that Lawson was in defendant's employ at the time he supplied the liquor. This was the case. Mr Stringer submitted that the information disclosed no offence, as intoxicating liquors were not specified. "Certain liquors" might mean lemonade or ginger-beer, and the sale of these waa not forbidden. Mr Beetham, after consulting authorities, agreed with Mr Stringer that the point was fatal, and that he had no power to amend such an information. He supposed Mr Stringer claimed a dismissal. Mr Stringer: "Yes, your Worship." Mr Beetham : " Well, under section 68 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1882, we dismiss the information without prejudice to its being again laid. It is not dismissed on the merits." Inspector Pender said he would take steps to lay a fresh information. Employing Young Persons and Females after Hours. — William Henry Hosking was accused of employing two young persons after 2 p.m. on Saturday, June 5, contrary to " The Employment of Females and Others Act, 1882." Mr M'Connel appeared for defendant. Constable Ja3. Bennetts, the Inspector under the Act, deposed that he visited defendant's Bhop at 220 p.m. on Saturday, and found two young persons working in the workroom. Eacb. of them gave his age as seventeen years. Defendant kept a saddlery establishment in Colombo street. Cross-examined : Saw the fathers of the boys. One of them said • Mr Hosking might have been misled as to the boy's age, as he (the father) had made a mistake in telling him the boy's age. Mr Hosking had said he gave his employees a half holiday on Thursdays, but witness had told him that, as the City Council had declined to alter the day from Saturday to Thursday, the Act which forbids the employment of young persons alter 2 p.m. on Saturdays, remains in force. The two lads referred to gave corroborative evidence. They were quite satitfied with Mr Hosking's arrangement. Mr M'Connel submitted that, though Mr Hosking might have broken the letter of an Act, he had adhered, to the spirit of it. He contended, however, that the Act meant that the females and young persons employed should apply for the half-holiday. Section 6 provided they should " have holiday without loss of wages" on Saturday afternoons, and this, he contended, meant -that application should be made for the holiday. Mr Hosking said he had understood when he engaged the boys three years ago that they were both considerably over 15 years of age. He therefore thought that they were now above 18— the age limit fixed by the Act in its definition of young persons. Mr Beetham said that the Bench were against Mr M'Connel as to the law j point. They considered, however, that the case was an exceptional one, and a fine of Is, with costs, was imposed. — E. J. Wnlsh, draper, was convicted of employing six females in his workroom on Saturday afternoon, June 12. The women had been found working by the Inspector about 20 minutes past 2 o'clock. They had been paid off for the day, but were finishing off an order. A fine of .£1 was imposed. Miscellaneous. — For not being in attendance on his cab on the South Belt, J. Gilbert was fined 10a. — D. Neilson and J. Jardine, for allowing horses or cattle to wander, were fined Ss each. — Samuel Smart was fined 5s for not keeping a light burning at night on a quantity of asphalt left in Colombo street.