RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2562, 4 May 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C, Strode, Esq., R.M.) BREACHES OF THE LICENSING ORDINANCE. Lamb v. Elizabeth Patterson.—Mr Harris defended. This was a charge against the defoml.mt for a breach of the licensing Ordinance, on the ground that about 11.40 on Saturday evening the comp ainaut had supper at Patterson’s, in the course of which he asked for a glass of porter. The waiter asked fur the money, and said ho would go and get it. Complainant replied he would not give him the trouble. Cn leaving the supper table he went to the bar, and s cing two decanters on the counter he asked whin it was, and was told it was ginger wine. He then taste I it, and paid 2s for sapper and wine. Complainant asked the defendant by whose authority she was sdl.ng it '! The defendant then threw down (id, and said she would give the wine. '1 he waiter was called, and stated that Lumb asked for a bottle of port.r and not a glass. Mr Hogg, of the firm of Hogg and Hutton, said that he supplied the defendant with ginger wine. She said she did not want anything to sell that was prohibited by the Licensing Ordinance, and he thought he told her that ginger wine did not come under the provisions of the Ordinance. His Worship did not consider that sel.ing was proved, and many people were under the implosion that ginger wine did not come under the Ordinance, !Sos ; but he di i not like the cal.ing mr a gl.ss of porter. He did not think the informant should do his duty in that manner, 'ihe case was dismissed,

Lumb v. Ridley.—The informant, win is a revenue officer, charged the defendant with a breach of the li cons'ng ordinance in selling ginger wine. 'I he compla'nant stated lie asked for something to drink. lie was told they had no grog but merely lemonade and cordials. Witness aske 1 for ginger wine.and gave defendant one shilling. There was some d fficulty about the change. Some conversation ensued, and, on d- fondant being informed the complainant was a revenue officer ho ordered him to be off. Evidence was given, showing that ginger wine contained alcohol. His Worship said no doubt the licensing ordinance prohibited the sale of ginger wine and cordials, although there was a general impression to the contrary, and the general practice had been for confectioners to s'il them. He should regard these informations as warnings, as they were the first prosecutions of the sort, and fine the defendant in a nominal sum—but in future informations for selling ginger wine would be dealt widi just the same as if it was a glass of biandy that was sold. Defendant was fined Is. and costs.

A. Lawson was charged on the in ‘ormation of J. Lumb with selling less than a bottle of ale, he being the holder of a bottle liccns'. Mr. Barton defended. The case was not proved, and was dismissed. John GoLcr was charged with selling a quantity of ale, value Is 6d. Mr Harris defended. The defendant is holder of a bottle license. A witn- ss was produced, who stated that the liquor was a present by Mrs (hdler to a certain number of men who had been customers. His Worship considered the complainant justified in bringing the charge, but from the evidence there did not appear to he any sale. Case dismissed. John Keith was charged with obstructing Mr Lumb in making search as a revenue officer to ascertain whether there had been any breach of the Licensing Ordinance. Mr Harris, on his behalf, admitted the offence, hut pleaded ignorance of the Act on tlio part of the defendant, and stated that unnecessary obtrusiveness had. been used. The informant said on pissing the house he heard the sound of persons in the ho se, and on knocking at the door after some time it was opened, but permission to search the premises was lefused, although his authority to do so was tendered for pern al. Evidence was given in support of the statement of the informant. His Worship considered that the revenue officer should be protected in the execution of his duty. He should not impose t!:e full penalty, which was very heavy. Under the circumstances he should fine him L 3, with costs. APPEAL. Kcill and Co. v. Dunedin Waterworks Company.—Mr Barton for the appell-nts ; Mr Harris (for Mr Macassey) for the respondents. This was an appeal from the assessment of the Waterworks Company, on the ground of their being excessive. (Left sitting.)