LEGAL & MAGISTERIAL NOTES

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XI, Issue 516, 8 November 1900, Page 19

LEGAL & MAGISTERIAL NOTES

Mr A. R. Dunn of the Market Hotel was last week fined 5s and 7s costs, for neglecting to keep a lamp burning outside his house all night on one occasion.

For attempting to obtain liquor at the Southern Cross Hotel, Christchurch, while a prohibited person, William Casey was fined forty shillings.

At the Christchurch S.M. Court recently, a son applied for a prohibition order against his father. The latter was very deaf, but when a constable shouted : “ Have you any objection to your drink being stopped,” he replied that .he had, most decidedly. As there were no convictions against the defendant, and as an order would have the effect of stopping the defendant’s old age pension, the Bench refused the application.

An amusing point was raised at the Water Police Court, Sydney the other day, in connection with the prosecution of a publican on a charge of permitting music on his licensed premises. The case for the police was that on the night of the alleged offence an officer, hearing a piano being played at the defendant’s hotel, remonstrated with him,pointing out that music was not allowed licensed premises without a permit. “Surely you don’t call that music ?’ ’ said the landlord ; and the performance on the piano was continued. The defendant explained in Court that for some time back there were only three sounding notes on the instrument, and on the night in question these had been made dumb by a “one-finger” performer. An artillery bandsman, who was called, said he tried to play on the instrument three weeks ago, but without success, for he could not get a single “scale.’’ There was no music left in it, and a person might as well thump a tin-can. Counsel for the defence, thereupon, contended that music was not being played at the hotel on the occasion referred to, inasmuch as the unoffending piano was incapable of melody. The point was sustained, and the case dismissed.

A case of much interest to hotelkeepers came on at the Christchurch Police Court last week, when Henry Carter, a prohibited person, was fined 20s by Mr Haselden, S.M., for having been found on licensed premises. it appeared from the evidence that he had been working at his trade as a carpenter for Mr Smith, of the Cricketers’ Arms Hotel. The Act, however, distinctly sets down that under no circumstances shall a prohibited person enter licensed premises, so the Magistrate had no option but to fine Carter. He, however, ventured the opinion that the case was one which it would have been advisable for the police not to see. Subsequently the fine was remitted. A charge against the licensee of the hotel, that he did knowingly permit a prohibited person to be on his licensed premises, was dismissed, there being no proof against defendant of knowledge. James Armstrong, a prohibited person, was fined 40s, in default fourteen days’ imprisonment, for having been found on licensed premises. He entered the Royal Oak Hotel, and was just being served with a drink for which he had called, when a man in blue appeared and prevented delivery.