RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, PORT CHALMERS.

Evening Star, Issue 3154, 29 March 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, PORT CHALMERS.

Yesterday. (Beforo Thos. Taylcr, Esq., J.P. and John Drysdalo, Esq., J.P.) Breach of the Licensing Ordinance, [B6s,—William Waters, licensee of the Railway Refreshment Rooms, Port Chalmers, was charged, on the information of the police, with having on Sunday, the 23rd day of March, between the hours of three and five o’clock in the afternoon, unlawfully sold and permitted to be sold and supplied fermented and spirituous liquors, and suffered the same to be drunk on his house and premises, contrary to the Licensing Ordinance, 1805. From the evidence of James McFarlane, chief officer of the ship City of Bombay, and William Alexander, Custom House officer, it was shown that liquors had been sold and supplied betweeu the hours mentioned, —Mr. Manaford, who appeared for the defendant, contended that the information was bad, as containing several separate offences, and that on that ground it must be dismissed, but that he was dcirous that their Worships should also take into consideration the merits of the case. He argued that the rooms were licensed under the Ordinance, which made no provision for refreshment rooms, and therefore it was necessary that it should have a general license, though at the time it was granted it was well known by the Licensing Justices that the house did not and could not comply with the requirements of the Ordinance. The rooms were only opened on Sunday during the running of the trains, and were invariably closed immediately after the departure of the last train, as had been admitted by the sergeant of police. If travellers were unable to obtain refreshments they would be liable to an action, as any traveller can legally claim, and every landlord is bound to supply him with them, Mr Manaford also urged that every house, not only in Port Chalmers, but in Dunedin, was open for the sale of liquors on Sunday, and that it was not fair to select this one in particular. He therefore submitted that, irrespective of the legal objection which he bad raised, the information should be dismissed on the merits.—The Magistrates retired to consider their decision, and on resuming remarked that it was a hard case, but that they considered the law had been contravened, and fined the defendant 5s and costs, recommending him for the future to keep the door ajar on Sundays,