MAYOR'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2820, 2 March 1872, Page 3

MAYOR'S COURT.

This Day. (Before his Worship the Mayor and J. Willis, Esq., J.P.) DRUNKENNESS. John Sinclair was fined 20s, or three days’ imprisonment. A charge of habitual drunkenness preferred against him was dismissed with a caution. SLY GROG SELLING. William Davidson was charged wiTi this offence. Mr Bathgate appeared for the prosecution ; Mr Stout defended. The principal witness was John Hnclair, the prisoner in the previous ca e, who was examined by Mr Bathgate as follows Well, John, what are you ? A miner. —i ou are a Shetland man, I believe ? Yes.—Dave you been working in Canterbury lately ? 1 came down about eight or ten days ago. When did you go to Davidson’s? About eight days ago.— * e keeps a boarding-house ? Yes.—Had you any money? L 7, winch I gave him to keep for me.—On the 22nd ult. did you get any drink there ? Yes. whisky. —Good stuff? I don’t know much about that.—How many glasses did you get? Seven or eight.-Did you pay for the whisky ? Yes —Were you not taken up by the police ? When I got into the open air I was muddled or stupid, and the police “collared” me.—Then you got drunk there? I paid for a hundred nobblers in the house. —By Mr Stout: I suppose you rarely get drunk? Very often.—When did you get this 6d worth of whisky? About ten days a*o: Davidson gave it to me in his bar.— You and he had a dispute about money matters, I believe? Yes. He stopped my money, and I can’t get it from liim. Tlieu because you could not get your money as ft sort of revenge you gave information? Yes. Did you not get several sums of money at different times from Davidson ? Yes, but not all I am entitled to. - Did he not refuse to give you money, because you wanted to get drunk with it? Yes, the drink 1 was dying and I wanted to freshen it up. (Laughter).— Then if the drink was dying, how could you get drunk in his lace? Why. when I had money I could get drb-k. I was trying to get into Wain’s to get some when I was locked up. The witness, in answer to Mr Bathgate, denied that the signature was his, whereupon Mr Stout obtained permission to send Davidson for a witness, -whom it was aliened would sware he saw Sinclair sign it Witness also said, in answer to the Bench, that Davidson supplied the whiskey and received the money. There were some strong words passing between counsel during Sinclair’s evidence. First Mr Stout declined to let Mr Bathgate see a document purporting to bear Sinclair s signature, but denied by him, although the Bench ruled against him, adding that their Worships might take whatever action they pleased. Afterwards, on Mr Stout attempting to put a question after he had sat down, Mr Bathgate charged him with “ bullying ” and irregular conduct, the like of which he had not before seen, to which Mr Stout retorted by saying—That is because you are not in the habit of attending Court very often.” The Bench then interfered, his Worship reproving Mr Stout, who then declined to put any further questions. _ George Lumb, revenue offi er, was briefly examined. . . . Mr Mont submitted, in the tirst place, that there was not a tittle of evidence to show that 6d worth of wiskey had been sold, but their Worships thought to the contrary. The learned counsel then said that he was placed in a difficulty, because, owing to the witness Sinclair having declined to swear that the liquor alleged to have been, was supplied at a particular time, he could not produce witnesses. His Worship thought there could be no doubt that it would have been more satisfactory if the principal wim ss for the prosecution had been of better character ; but at the same time he did’nt think it followed as a necessary consequence, because that it nas so that the witness does not speak the truth. If the defendant had brought evidence by the servants or persons who had been about the place for a length of time, that so far as they knew liquors had not been sold there, it would have gone far to assist the Bench in believing what Sinclair had said was not correct. ~ ... Mr Stout said that evidence would be forthcoming on Davidson’s return to Court. Dis Worship said he understood the dc fendant’s counsel had closed hiscise He thought the time of the Court had been trifled with, and he must say the defendant s counsel’s conduct had been very disrespect: fill towards the Bench. The Bench \\cio of opinion that a fine of Lo and costs should be inflicted in the case.