MAYOR'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2995, 24 September 1872, Page 2

MAYOR'S COURT.

This Day. (Before his Worship the Mayor aud A. J. Burns, Esq., J.P.) DRUNKENNESS. John M‘Donald was fined ss. BREACH OF THE LICENSING ORDINANCE. Henry Williamson, landlord of the Prince of Wales Hotel, Princes street, was charged with permitting gambling in his licensed house on or about the 2nd inst. Mr M‘Keay defended. These proceedings arose out of the disclosures made in the recent case of Asher v. M‘Allister, in theR.M. Court. It was proved by M‘Allister, A. Muir, and W. Blair that the two first mentioned went one evening to Williamson’s Hotel and threw with dice for drinks, and afterwards threw for money for two hours, M‘Allister losing his money aud his watch and chain. Muir and M‘Allister spoke of the date as being the second instant, but Blair was not so positive, he declining to pledge himself further than by stating that the transaction took place one evening in the latter part of August. The dice were brought into the room by Mrs Wiliiarason, and tiie drinks subsequently had were brought in by a Mrs Wood, to produce whom the police had made every effort, but without success. Williamson, it was admitted, was at the Theatre while the gambling was going on. Mr M‘Keay submitted there was no case to answer. Not a tittle of evidence had been given to show that the gambling had been going on with the knowledge, much less the permission, of the defendant. The clause of the Ordinance under which the information was laid being penal in its character, should be construed very strictly. The words of it were:— “No person holding a general license .... shall permit or suffer gambling or any game of chance upon his licensed premises. It had not been shown that Williamson was the holder of a general license, which was essential, nor had it been shown that he permitted the gambling. On these grounds ho considered the case must fall through. The Bench considered there was a decided case to answer. Mr M'Keay declined to call any witnesses, because he considered that the two points he had raised were fatal to the case. His Worship said the Bench were of opinion that the case against the defendant was proved. The contentions raised by counsel were no doubt very proper ones for him to raise ; but the Bench held that if gambling took place upon licensed premises, the proprietor, whether he was present or not, was liable. There could be no reasonable doubt about that, With regard to the defendant himself, it had not been alleged that he was in the habit of allowing that kind of thing ; and the Bench were therefore quite willing to believe that it was an isolated case. It was perfectly well known that gamb ing was carried on in the licensed houses throughout the town ; and to a very large extent, One fiftieth of the cases that took place never came under the notice of the Bench, nor wichin the purview of the public. It was absolutely necessary that the Bench should use its influence in order to put down such a state of things. It could not be at all permitted that people who went into a hotel, perhaps a little the worse for liquor, should have to run the risk of being enticed into gambling, and thus be fleeced of all the money they possessed. As he had before observed, it was the duty of the Bench to put a stop to such a state of things, and, speaking for himself, so long as he occupied his present position, he would endeavour to do so. Gambling

was rampant here ; it was not confined to ono or two houses, but was practised in dozens. There was no excuse for the landlord ; for, by declining to permit the use of the dice-box upon his premises, neither his servants nor anyone else could infringe the law. He thought it was a pity that the legislation of this Province or of the Colony was defective in not dealing with persons outside the landlord—that those parties who engaged in gambling could not be punished, for in a great number of cases they were as much to blame as the landlord. The defendant would be fined LlO. Mr M‘Keay gave notice of appeal. BYE-LAW CASES. John Geeves was fined 40s and costs for allowing cattle to stray, James Muir v. Alex, Reid, p complaint under the Town and Country Police Ordinance, was dismissed. THREATENING LANGUACB. Reid v. Almoa, dismissed with a caution.