AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume V, Issue 429, 31 August 1880, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Fkiday, August 27, 1880.

(Before Justin Aylmer, Esq., R M.)

BREACH OF THE PEACE. Auguste Lelievro and William Rossiter were charged with fighting opposite the R.M.s house, Church street, on Saturday night, August 21. Lelievre pleaded guilty ; Rossiter not guilty. The evidence went to showtbat Lelievre pursued Rossiter into Wagstaff's Hotel ; that the latter had refused to fight, and had left the hotel; and that the former had followed him to the place mentioned, and had struck him. It appeared that a fight between the two had been arranged to come off upon same future occasion, but that on the Saturday night Rossiter had, when asked if he would fight then, replied he was not in a fit state. The Bench fined Lelievre 10s and costs, and dismissed Rossiter with a caution,having been first assured that a repetition of the unpleasantness between tbe two was not likely to again occur. BREACH OF LICENSING ACT. Wes. Chamberlain was charged with supplying liquor and suffering the same to be drank on his premises, after the hour of 11 o'clock on the 13th inst. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Sergeant Willis stated that on the night in question defendant had snfferod drink to be consumed in his house after 11 o'clock, even although he might have supplied it before that hour, and that according io the Licensing Act a breach had been committed, as tbe clause stated the publican must only not supply, but must not suffer drink to be consumed on the premises after the prescribed hours. Defendant said he had a small party at his house on tbe night in question, but at a quarter to eleven he had supplied the guests with their requirements, and then locked up his bar and retired to bed. His bar was closed before 11 p.m. Sergeant Willis contended that the defendant should have applied for an extension of his license. Defendant replied that sufficient time had not been allowed him, and that he had not been aware be was transgressing. The Bench ruled that a distinct offence had been proved, but that from tho evidence it appeared defendant had erred through ignorance, and not intentionally ; the case would therefore be dismissed.