MAYOR'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2813, 23 February 1872, Page 2

MAYOR'S COURT.

This Day. (Before his Worship the Mayor.) DRUNKENNESS. John Sinclair and Thomas Todd were each fined 10s. Anuie M‘Pherson, alias Mrs MTvenzie, was fined 40s, or fourteen days’ imprisonment. OBSCENE LANGUAGE. Samuel Farra was fined 40s, or a month’s imprisonment. OFFENCE AGAINST THE BYE-LAWS. Alexander Cameron was lined 2s fid and costs for allowing cattle to stray. SLY-GROG SELLING. William Hall, proprietor of the notorious Bristol House, was charged with this offence. It appeared from the evidence that on the evening of the 20th inst. three men named M oir, Porter, aud Low, went to the defendant’s house, to see some women th*Te. One of the men told the woman who represents herself as Hall’s wife, to get some beer, which she went for, and he paid her for it. All present, including Hall, who was in the room the whole time, partook of it. Moir went to a bedroom with a woman named Annie Lockwood, and immediately after she left him he missed from Ins coat pocket the sum of L 35. He went down stairs, and iu Hall’s presence accused the woman of stealing it. Hall said such a thing could not have happened iu his house, apd threat ned to strike the man with a whip-handle which he held in Ms hand. The police were sent for, but a search being instituted by Inspector Thompson and Detective Farrell, resulted iu no trace of the stolen property being found. In a cellar were found a barrel of beer on tap, and receipts of very recent date for large quantities of beer, one receipt being for Ll4. It was stated in evidence that before the robbery Moir and the woman had had some words about money ; when the other wished to take him away with them j

but Hall quieted their fears by saying it was all right, as Moic had been there before. Hal’s defence was that he knew there was beer in the house and that he drank with Moir, but he denied having received any money for it, or that he was present when it was sent for. His Worship considered the evidence to have been of the clearest description, and there was not the slightest doubt that the defendant had been guilty of a breach of the Licensing Ordinance, because it mattered not whether he had actually received the money or not. The evidence was conclusive on the point of his being present when the beer was ordered, when it was brought in and when it was paid for. The evidence also showed his servant had taken the money- of course wiih his knowledge, which brought him under the Ordinance. The house he occupied was a most notorious one—in times past it gained a frightful notoriety ; hut he had been in hopes that its character had been changed. It appeared, however, that the defendant had resumed the practices which he formerly carried on there, and it was the duty of the Bench to stop those proceedings as far as possible. The defendant won dbe fined L 25, The line was immediately paid.