MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1287, 13 July 1886, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

AS H BURTON—TO- DAT,

[Before Mr H. 0. S. Biddeley, R.M.] DRUNKENNESS. James Leeson was charged with having been drunk and with having made use of obscene language.—Constable Latimer proved the offence. For drunkenness the accused was fined 5a and costs, with the usual alternative, and for making use of obscene language was ordered to be imprisoned for 48 hours with hard labor. SUPPLYING A PROHIBITED PERSON. Horace George Andrews, a lad abont II years of age, and the son of the Steward of the Ashburton Club, was charged with a breach of the 169th section of the Licensing Act by supplying one George Parkin, a prohibited person, with liquor. —Mr Crisp appeared for the defendant The following evidence was taken.—J R. Oolyer stated that on July 21, 1885, a prohibition order had been issued against George Parkin.—Mrs Parkin, the wife of George Parkin, said she had spoken to Mr Nelson, president of the Ashburton Clnb on several occasions, and asked him to give orders to stop her husband’s liquor, Mr Nelson promised to do so, but as her husband still came home under the influence of liquor she followed him one evening to the Club where she found him sitting reading the newspaper and drinking a glass of whisky She took the glass from him and threw it out The boy, the defendant, in reply to witness, admitted having supplied her husband with the liquor.—Constable Remor said that on the 6th Inst he went to the Club with Mrs Parkin. He saw the b< y Andrews, the son of the caretaker, and he admitted having supplied the liquor. Witness did not think the defendant understood the definition of “ prohibited,” but thought witness was accusing him with supplying a drunken person.—This was the evidence for the police.—After some argument between Sergeant Felton and Mr Crisp the latter submitted that the case must be dismissed became the 229th section of the Act set forth that nothing in |thls Act shall apply to Clubs.” —The Magistrate could not agree with Mr Crisp's contention. He said the words quoted by Mr Crisp only applied to the provisions with regard to he closing of hotels.—After some further argument, Sergeant Felton called if. B, Nelson to prove that the defendant had a knowledge of Parkin being a prohibited person. Mr Nelson said that Mrs Parkin had spoken to him about her husband being supplied with liquor. Witness said that if Mr Parkin got liquor at the Club witness would see that he did not get liquor there any more Witness did not speak to any one in the Club telling them not to supply Parkin.— As there was no evidence of knowledge on the toy’s part that Parkin was a prohibited person the case was dismissed. The Court then rose