MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2197, 12 August 1889, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBURTON— MONDAY.

(Before Me R. Alcorn J.P., and Mr H

Frledlander J P.) SUPPLYING A PROHIBITED PEBSON.

Archibald MoLeod, and Danitld MoLeod were ohargtd with having aupplied John Ltmk with beer, knowing him to be a prohibited person, —Oor stable Ctsey said that on Saturday August 3rd, he went to MoLaod's house on the Lagmhor roal The two defendants, with Ltuk and other men were there. There waa a five gallon keg of beer In the room where the man were. While witness was there Donald MoLeod drew a cup of beer and platted it on the table. Witness told them that they ehonkl not have Lusk there, as they knew he was prohibited, They admitted knowing that Lusk was prohibited and said that he had been there slnoo the Wednesday night, and that ha had only had occasional nips of beer. — Frank Biaok said that he saw Donald MoLeod draw a cup of beer and hand It to Lusk who, however, would not drink. It In the presenoa of witness. Witness had occasion to go out shortly afterwards and on re< turning found that the beer waa gone bot he oould not say who drunk It. Defendants were aware that Lusk was prohibited because witness told them bo, and warned them that If they did not send him away they would get Into trouble.— George Grloe eaid that he was at MoLeod'a and anw Lusk get some beer. He helped himself to the beer. The MoLeods were present. They tried to send Lusk away several times but he would not go. They did not prevent him helping himself to jboer. — Archibald McLaod, one of the defendants, stated that hla brother and Lnsk came to the house late on the Wednesday night after he went to bed. He did not give Luak any lqaor and he tried to get him to go away. — The Bench said that the case had been clearly 1 proved. It had been shown that defendants knew that Lnsk waa prohibited, and it was no exoase to say that he would Got go away. They oould easily hate sent him away, or at any rate removed the beer beyond his reach. [The defendant A. MoLeod aaid he was not aware that ft wib an offence for a private person to supply liquor to a man who was prqhibited. He thought the prohibition only held good as far na the hotels were concerned.] The Benoh said tbaUprlvate person was equally liable with a public-house keeper. As this was the first case that had come before them tho Benoh would only Inflict a light penalty, 40j and ooata, and they hoped that this would be a warning not only to defendants but to tho whole country. There was nothing more desplloable than- to encouragp p. man who had no control over himself to go on drinking after he had baen stopped frojw j-.'; .■' nglfquor at pablto houses.