RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 1055, 22 September 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

ASHBURTON — Yesterdax

(Before H. C. S. Eaddeley Esq, R.M.) The following evidence was taken in Mr Hill’s case yesterday after we went to press : Breach of Licensing Act. Alfred Hunt said that he was in the billiard room when the constable b came. He and Oughton had the cues in their hands, but they were not playing. The balls were knocked about, but no score was main. —To the Bench: Would positively Swear that no game of billiards was played by witness on the evening in question.—R. W. Shearman was called, to give evidence as to the terms of the lease with Mr Hill, bat Mr Wilding objected, on the ground

that the document should have been put in. The objection was sustained. In cross examination, Mr Shearman said that if Mr Hill lost his license he (the witness) would get LI, OOO. —This closed the case for the police, and Mr Wilding said that he did not think there was anything to answer. He could call Mr Hill and his billiard marker to prove that the billiard room was closed at 10 o’clock, but the marker had certain duties to perform*! such as brushing down the table, etc. — His Warship said he would like to hear evidence.—Mr Wilding then quoted several cases to show that knowledge on the part of the proprietor was necessary to ensure a conviction.—F. L. K. Hill was then placed in the box, but Mr Wilding declined to examine him. In answer to the Bench, he stated that on tho night in question ha was unaware of the billiard room being open after ten o’clock. The agreement with the marker was that the room shou'd be kept open fromlO a.m. to 10 p.m. B. Hicks was also examined, and gave similar evidence. —His Worship said that it appeared to him the police had gone into the place a little too soon. He certainly could not convict on the evidence before him, and he would therefore dismiss the case.

Another Charge.—Thomas Quill was charged with having allowed billiards to bo played in his licensed house within prohibited hours, on the night of Sept. 1. Mr Crisp, who appeared for the defence, said th it he wou’d admit that billiards were being played.—W. Martin, Clerk of the Ashburton Licensing Committee, gave evidence as to the issuing of the license to Mr Quill. —Sergeant Felton, an inspector of licensed houses in the district, was then sworn, but Mr Crisp objected to any evidence being received as to the premises. After argument, his Worship said he would take note of the objection, but decided to accept the evidence.—Constable Smart testified to finding the persons mention# I in the information playing billiards in Quill’s Hotel on September 1. This was the case for the prosecution.—Mr Crisp then called John Fitzgerald, who said he was the billiardmarker of Quill’s Hotel. He was not employed by Mr Quill, who had to pay the same as any other person if he had a game. There were three doors to the room. Cross-examined : He had been there for two years, and the billiard room had always been where it is at present. Mr Quill was exactly on the same footing as any other person and had no control over witness, who wrs a paid servant of the lessee, Mr Hicks.—Mr Crisp, for the defence, argued that the offence disclosed in the information was not one peculiar to a person holding a li3ensa. Under the old Act a publican would rather plead guilty and pay the' fine, but under the present system the one who had not committed the offence was liable to be punished. In this instance, if Mr Quill were found guilty there was nothing to prevent the same men doing the same thing tomorrow, and so render the present defendant liable again. He then went on to apeak of a technical objection as to the meaning of the word f remises in the Licensing Act. The terms of the lease, which was put in, counsel contended, prevented Mr Quill having any more control over the billiard room than an ordinary landlord. It was just as reasonable to bring a charge of allowing billiards be>ng played against Mr Quill, as against any other person in the world. The offence was impossible, as Mr Quill could not allow, because he lacked the power ; he could not do what he was accused of doing even if he wished it. He would ask his Worship to consider the position of the man who signed the lease. He was the most interested person in the matter, but he was away at Napier and cnuld not answer the charge now virtually brought against him. If the decision in this case be averse to Mr Quill, the property would be decreased 50 per cent.— His Worship said he would reserve his decision till Monday. Laroenv.—Daniel Burns was brought up on remand, charged with the larceny of 15s from the till of Rowse’s Hotel at Methven. —R. Fitzgerald, the barman of the hotel, gave evidence to the effect that the defendant came in company with two other men. 'ihey said they had only 4s 61 amongst them. Drinks were served for which accused paid. Witness left the bar at half-past five, and returned at six o’clock, when the men were having some bread and cheese. They said they had spent their last shiling, and Mr Rowse “shouted” beer for them. Later on witness was away from the bar for two minutes, and on his return noticed that some silver was gone.— Constable Black, being sworn, said Uiat he had searched the prisoner and found on him the 7a produced. Among the money was a shilling with a hole in it, which was immediately identified by’Mr Rowse. Searched Craig and found 3s 6d on him. but did not search the third man. —The prisoner made a statement to the effect that he had never said ha had no money, and it was not true what the barman had sworn. If he had the shilling identified in his possession he must have got it in playing cards. Ha called Craig to prove that he ( prisoner) had money when they left Christchurch. Witness said he was too drunk to know much about what had occurred. His Worship said that there was very strong suspicion, but he was not satisfied with the evidence and he must discharge the accused.