RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3646, 29 October 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, October 29. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., 8.M.) DRUNKENNKss-John Leary and John Mock land, charged with this offence, were each fined ss, with the option of twentv-four hours imprisonment; Kate Boyle, 10s or forty-eight hours'. v.n a further charge of habitual drunkenness, the last-named was sent to gaol for three months. Obscene Language -Mary AnneTuppin, charged with using indecent language on October 18, within the hearing of persons passing in King street, was fiu< d 10s, with the option of forty-eight hours’ imprisonment. The Licensing Ordinance —John Sib. bald, being the holder of a publican’s license ' issued under the Licensing Act of 1873, was charged with having mere than one bar in his licensed house, known as the Provincial Hotel, contrary to section 10 of the Licensin i Act, October 1873. Commissioner Weldon, with him Sub-Inspector Mallard, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Stout defended. —Commissioner Weldon : Will your \\ orship allow me to state that the ca eis brought, not so-tnuch to have a fine in* flicied as to have a remedy. The 9th section 1 was contravened, so that {the police have no discretion. —ergeant Anderson said defend* > ant s hotel was situated in Stafford street, b'ne bar leads into the vestibule of the I theatre and sale yards, another into Stafford , street, a third was accessible from the dress 5 circle entrance of the theatre, and another s underground wasknownas “ The Shades.”— > Mr Stout: What do you understand by the word “ ha ?” —Where liquors are exposed for saie. Then you call any place where liquors are exposed for sale a bar? When you say four bars, you mean four places where liquors are exposed for sale ? Yes. Hone of the bars were directly open to the street In the bare there were also counters and fittings. ; His Worship : And the counter with the usual splendid array of [ b ittles.—(Lau.hter). The Commissioner; r Have the public access to these bars ?—Wit* i ness : Yvs, when the bars arp open. Any } liquors can he obtained there. " On the day ) mentioned the four bars were open for bust* f ness. I have seen liquors sold at all the burs. *■ This was the case.—Mr J Stout: There are j other cases, and, as the facts are similar, it ■ [*}R ht be as well to take them all together. , Whatever depision js given in one case will doubtless regulate the others. In answer ip the Bench, Mr Stout said that the other cases were slightly dissimilar to Sibbald’s, lc Court’s case the second bar was only a prtss, and had no fittings, and he did i not know how it could be called a i bar at all. Perhaps it would be as well, to I save time, to take the legal arguments alto* ; gether. His Worship agreed to this course. ; He would take any special circumstances , into account—His Worship ; Then 1 pre* • same Court’s case will rule the others ?—Mr > Haggitt and Mr Harris dissented—Louis ! Court was then charged with having two bars in his licensed house, known as the s Otago Hotel. Mr Stout defended.—Sergeant Anderson said that one bar laced Rattray s street, and that access was had to the other by a flight of stairs from Kattray street and also from the dining room. In the second . bar there wpre shelves with bottles, fittings, . &c., and a barmaid in attendance.—Mr : Stout : Are the bottles not in a’cupboard ; with a glass front?— Witness could not Mr Stout: They are not arranged on the counter as stated by his Worship in the | usual fashion.— (Laughter.)— Witness in answer to the Bench, said that private peri 80n ® could go upstairs and get supplied , without being seen outside—This was tlm case.—Job Wain was then charged with ; having more than one bar in his licensed bouse, known as Wain’s Hotel.—Sergeant ■ Anderson gave evidence that there were two | bars in the house. One was situated with an entrance to Manse street; the other bar I oould be entered by a long passage leading ■ from the street.—By Mr Haggitt (who do* i | en ded); There is no bar or connection lead* i ID S from the second bar into a highway, thoroughfare, or public place.—George Hod* son. was next charged with the same off nee. The facts were prec sely similar.— Edwa v d Lyons was charged with havir g two bars in his house, known as the Union Hotel Mr Barrie defended. The facts were the same as ia the two previous cases.—Mr Haggitt submitted that no penalty could be in* flicted, and so far as the two cases in which he was concerned went, no breach of the Licensing Act had been committed. The two cast s - stand in exactly the same position, there being in each only one bar immediately leading on to a street, highway, or publio thoroughfare; and both bars on the pre* mises had been opened for More than twelvq months. A s the cases were only brought as test cases, no penalty was asked by the police. In the second section of the Act of 1873 the meaning of public bar was defined It was not contrary to law to lave any number of bars in a licensed hotel so long &8 only one opened on to & highway, thoroughfare, or' pub ic place. There was a passage of over fifty feet between the two bars, so that tie second bar did' not pome within the second section of the Act. The Amending Act, 1874, appears to have been made through entire forgetfulness of the definition of the second section, for it abandoned tbe word “public,” and simply said more than one bar. Ths Act also v. a \j w ken there was one bar, the holder of the license should pay a fee equal to one-third of the publican’s license, or any other amount, as may be determined upon. It was admitted by the police that both Dodson a and Wain’s bars had been open for twelve mouths, and the. bars were therefore nqt new ones. The Legislature al owod a continuance of a license, and a breach cohld only ensue where licensed room had been opened. He sub: nutted that the ninth section authorised hj continuance of a license already granted a lie ninth section did not prohibit the having more _ than one bar upon the premises; it was simply made under a misapprehension pf -* th® misapprehension being that the ninth section of the 1873 Act pro® mbiteq. more than one bar, whereas it only prohibits more than one “ public ” bar, n * 0U a P u klic thoroughfare. Speaking to the -acts, and not as to the legal position, his clients had made every endeavor possible to place themselves within the letter of the Act: they had tendered additional fees for additional bars. They had tendered the msney to the Corporation, the persons entitled to receive the fees prescribed, but the Corporation, as advised, would not receive it. His Worship had been asked to grant the license; but he had refused to do so, leaving the matter to the Licensing Court, which** however, had sat since, wherefore his bad been unable to get their licenses granted The licenses were strictly legal no additional bars having been opened since the granting of the license—Mr Stout wished to urge one or two additional points. If the Statement of the constable that a bar was any place where liquor was exposed for sale was accepted, he might go into a whole* sale house where spirits where sold and urge hat that was a bar, Tbe real , meaning of the word bar was “fenced off’’-something Vo»r? e n ft* u,:e an enclosure. 'The Act of 1874 must be read as part pf the Aet of 1873. lo determine what was a bar, his Worship must take the interpretation clause of the 18 1 3 Act, which said that any pablicaft could hold one public bar,—Mr Harris also addressed the Court on bebalf of Lyons.— His Worship; The cases must turnon the

ineaning of the words “public hw.” The information is laid under the of 1873, and I will take time to consider f tUy the meaning of “ bar” and of this infe* ;> ciation clause. I would not like to give a Lurried decision. Judgment will be reservul in all the cases.

Permuting Singing in a Licensed House. Edward Lyons was char ed w ,t----permitting sinning in bis licensed boose, known as the Union t-otel, without permission. Mr Harris (who defended) admi ted the charge, but claimed that n > permission was necessary.—Mr Stout wished to explain that the in ignorance that the Magistrate had refused it, had signed a license granted by the Town Clerk for defendant to allow singing in his house. Ho (Mr Stout) was instructed to make that explanation in case his Worship might think the Superintendent had signed it knowing that it had been previously refused.—Seret. Anderson said that singing took place in the Eart of defendant’s house referred to, and nown as the Olympic Music Hall. a woman also played the piano and a man the violin.—Hr Harris said that defendant had for six years been allowed the license, and had not been interfered with in any way till his Worship declined to grant him a renewal this year. No complaint of riotous conduct taking place in the hall had ever been made —His VS orship said the reasons which induced him to take away the license were twofold. In the first place, he had noticed in the * Gazette ’ that two cases of theft had taken place there ; and secondly, as a magistrate, he did not approve of the opening of such places. If the public wished some place of amusement there was a theatre, and he encouraged that in preference to concert halls of this class. In Lyons’s place there was no charge for admission ; which was an inducement for people to spend meney in drink. Many persons who went to a theatre objected to pay the price of a nobbier, and be did not think any Good Tetnplas woud object -to going to a good play. A place 1 ke Lyons’s was an induce, ment to youngsters to have drinks. The 0 own < ler in granting the license, had only looked at the matter Tom a revenue point of view, and without looking at ihe social and moral view. A bolder of a publican’s license could have a theatrical entertainment, but not singing or dancing ; and in allowing singing defendant had contravened the law. He might give defendant a word, of advice—though advice from a B nch was not often listened to—(laughter,—andjthat was as to the dofige to which he bad resorted to get his license. The police would be bound to make a note of it for the n xt Licensing Court. Tt was excessively unwise for the U< rporationtolook at it as a pounds-, shillings, and pence matter in granting the license without taking into consideration the moral question. He would only inflict a penalty sufficient to show that there had been an evasion of the law,—Defendant was fined 20s and costs Mr Harris said Lyons wmuld his L3O, as the Corporation would be unlikely to refund the fees.—The Town Clerk asked his Worship to state a case for the higher Court. —Mis Worship pointed out that to do so he would need to make the fine I 5 and costs. Mr Harris thereupon agreed to abide by the former decision. THE COMET CASE, William Anning, miner, v. R. B. Martin —This was an action brought to recover the sum of L 99 for loss sustained through defendant failing to carry out his contract with {(lain tiff to ctrry him to Cooktown, aud LlO oss»>f passage-money. Ur Barton appeared Jor complainant, find Mr Stout for defendant. Mr Barton explained that plaintiff and others had intended going to t|ie Palmer diggings, and that the present case was a test one. The men had arranged to sail from Christchurch direct, but the vessel—the Escupado—in which they were to havp gone was considered unfit to carry passengers, and for some reason of that kind condemned by the Government. Mr M‘ Iroy, who had arranged for her sailing, received L 5 from the plaintiff and others previous to signing the ticke s with his name, and the balance L 5 afterwards MTlroy signed it for Mr Martin, the defendant, ho having arranged with that gentle ran on the other vessel not being able to sail, that they should proceed from Port Chalmers in the Comet. They were accordingly sent to Pert Chalmers, and on calling on Mr Martin, the latter s .id, “ Ob, it’s all right ” This, he submitted, was a complete ratification of the contract, and it could not be repudiated afterwards. The passengers had a right to claim for damage*; Put if they were conveyed to the Palmer by the Comet, they were willing to accept a nominal penalty of Is and costs William Anning, the plaintiff, said he was a miner, and came from Timaru. He obtained the receipt produced from MMlroy. It was for L 5, which was to be returned in case of his not being forwarded. He afterwards paid the balance (L 9), and was sent down to Port Chalmeis by the Maori, 'which went alongside the Comet, to which 1 the passengers were transhipped. Her captain said that he was aware of their coming, but was 'not then ready to sail. Witness aud Others Wjsnfc to see her agents Messrs R. B. Martin and Co.—and on going into Mr Martin’s ossce, saw the cleric (Mr Blyth). and was told that the Comet would be ready for sea at the end of the week, and that the passage was Ll2. Witness replbd that he had a ticket. At this time Mr Martin came in, and, on examining the receipts, told witness that they were all right, and also told him he would want them on the voyage. M r Martin said the vessel would not sail on the following Friday, it being an unlucky day ; but thvt it would go on the "’aturday. Un witness eayiug that his understanding with MTlroy was that his expenses ceased from the day he left Lyttelton, Mr Martin replied that the vessel was prevented from discharging owing to bad weather; but, if he had been ready earlier, he wonld have waited far them. • With & man named Thorne he afterwards called on KJr Martin, who then said that he did not recognise the tickets or M Tlroy, On witness’s returning to Mr Martin’s office, he found about a dozm. other passengers there, and showing Mr Martin the tickpt, asked if it was a forgery.—Mr Morton replied that witness did not understand the thing, and also told him that he would not let him or any of MTlruy’s passengers go on board unless he' had a better understanding wiHi MTlroy. Witne; s was already L 57 out of pocket, aud it was important to him that he should be at the rush early. About two months ago he re ceived a letterfrom oneof his mates, whowrote that he was making two ounces a day, and telling witness to go over as soon as he could. He was willing to take Is and costs, if taken by the Comet. Several of those who came from Christchurch were also called, and gave confirmatory evidence. —Mr Stout submitted that, neither in law nor in fact, was the plaintiff entitled to recover Sympathy was one thing, but sympathy in making Mr Martin pay about L 5,000 was quite another. He called Mr Martin, who denied <that he ever authorised MTlroy (of whom he had no personal knowledge) cither verbally or by writing to sign the tickets, “ as agent for R. TJ. Martin and Co,” When the men came to on the Tuesday he might have said ‘‘All right,” but he also said “ I have no advices. ” He was veiy guarded, and would not commit himself, as he was looking for remittances. Sympathising with the men, he advised them to send a deputation to Lyttelton to protect their interests. So far as his knowledge went, and notwithstanding the evidence of ike seamen, he denied saying to them “ Keep yonr tickets, yen’ll want them on board.” ‘Correspondence had passed be-

tween M‘llroy and witness’s^Hncipals—Mr Martin, recalled: Had no recollection that he told one Crawford that he could not take him because the vessel was full, owing to the number of passenger from Lyttelton.—Captain Cooper, of the Comet, said MTntyre had h-.d an interest in a previous cargo, but n >i>e in the vessel.—Anning, re called, said at 1 yt cltun M ‘lntyre had told him he had owned the Comet, and that he had made or was making arrangements with Martin to send witness and the other passengers on.

[Left sitting ]