RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3650, 3 November 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tuesday, November 3. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., 11.M.) Drunkenness. -Alfred Clay and Thomas Watson wore discharged with a ciution. Larceny—Mary Anne -a ‘Donald, a very old offender, was sent to gaol for thirty davs ou a charge of stealing a quant ity of lace of the value of 7s 61, the property of Herbert Pago Colo draper, Howe street. On a further charge of assaulting Caroline Cole, w;fp of the former pr jtecutor, aha was sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment with hard labor, the fences to be cumulative. the licensing ordinance. In the charges brought by the police against Job Wain, Louis Court, George t todson, and J oho yibbald, for haviug more than oae bar iu their licensed houses, contrary to the Licensing Ordinance of 1873, his Wor- j snip now delivered judgment as follows : “ Polios against Wain and others,—l have looked i :to this question an 1 have come to the conclusion that the prohibition in the 1 iccnsing Act, 1873, as to more than one ba being on the premises, only applies to public bars.* These are jdeiined tomcat and include ‘ any room, passage, or lobby in any licensed publichouse open immediately to any street, highway, or thoroughfare, wherein the public may enter and purchase auy spirituous or fermented liquors.’ The plain meaning of this definition is that the room, passage, or lobby where the bar is placed mu.it open to the public street without anything between it and the street. I he word ’immediately’ signifies literally without a middle, that is, wi'hout anything between or interveni g If, therefore, a bails suuated in a room, passage, or lobby which does not open immediately to the street, it is not. a public bar in the terms of the •tot. I find that iu none of the cases m ought before the Court is the second bar so placed as to be fairly within the Statute as a public bar. W»ip'» second bar is in a

parlor op ivng into a side pleave ; Lyons's ■sec 'nd Inr O 'e.'is mto a c nicer r, room ; Dodson’.s opens into a s-i. 1:» p > rl ■ r ; and I 'onrt’s s no, on the ground floor at all. Ths 0 ily one about winch there is any dount is ibbil i’s at which th°re is a door opening immcdiate y imo Hiffi street; bit it is stated that tins dom has not been iu use S’nee the Ac* came in force, md on the .'.ay m utioue l in the cunpl out the only acce's w.‘S tmm a lobby. lam th.iefore miaile ui c uivi t in any of the oasar, and the infi.rmatio s will he sc’ve.aHy distressed. It mig it he urge! that there are good grounds for p-ooeeding tinier -hi of 1874 which ‘‘X■ iresslv prohi'i’ts any additional bar, whether public or not, without he consent of the licensin' ; .'ourt, and without payment of the neasiiry fee, but as the parties have not yet bad au opportunity of making application for sanction :.o the 1 bicen-ing ( ’oart, it is reasonable they should bo permitted to maiutam their position in statu quo ante until aft r the ne<t meeting of the ■ icensiug Court [That is to say, while I will not convict any of those parties wio for the last -six or eight months have had bars in existence, I don t mean to say that aright or com nission is conferred on any one o open a: ar now. It is only fhose parties who have had the »;< oo.id bar since 1803 to whom these obs rvaii usappU ] In us.nissing Sibhaid’s c ise along with the est lam not to be ho ! d as pronouncing any gen rai opioio i as to the lawfulness of any >t jho th atre bars. All toe length this d cision goes is that n ne of the bars there ,rtJ ‘ * rubiic bars’ with n’tlie I may ado that, the police have act-d righllv in cringing the matter forward for the d cision ►f the Court.”

SLY GUOG-SE LIN'G. do her t C;ulz >w was ch" r r' \ <n the infor'iir.tion of Philip tilcci', laborer, with hj. iug. on Oct. hi r 28, a' ■ r-mu s Bay, -•1,: rod one shilling’s wort}; .f ye t > be .-.old c.i his i-ri’.-nises at : nd. t. n ,s Bay. he not heci;.' a person duly liotn-e-i under the Licensing Act. V. r appeared for .ndzow. Su'.-lnsptictor Mfdhard explained that there were twelve informations of sly grog-soiling to come before !ho Court during rhed’y. He might state that as no steps had been t'k n to put the si - grog sale dawa the police had deemed it their duty’ to move iu the m itter, with a view of suppressing the sale .He woiiid admit that there were others in town who carried on the illegal traffic, but of com so the police could rot bring them all up at once. Ue made those re ma r ks to show that no one had been personally overlooked -His Worship had no doubt the police were only doing a public duty iu bringing the cases before the Court, and all they woul I have to do was to prove the oh a ges lie was afraid the ma’.t r had hem too long winked at, the consequence being that the fair trader w’-o paid his license had been wronged. - Informant sud that on th * dav i ; q u-stl r he went to defnudaut’s hou « and in a m which was lifted up as a bar, he and a v - hj r man were -upl'-d with a gas of - uhfr whi-h a shilling was p-M. ’|'h- man 'with him also purchased t‘ g le i.-r .'i-.rter now pro-duced.-Mr Hagott : V-hrit, took you to defendant’s pUc- ?—Witu os ; I'o see if defendant sold liqu-.r —Mr Ilaggift: Who sent you th re?— ut).lnspect t MaUird thought he could fairly obj.-ct to she quertron. e must claim that pnvi'ege —tiis Worsh'p did not think tue question relevant. The question to be c iisideif d was not who sent the witness to the houga, but' whether the liquor was sold or not.—Witness then said tiitit defendant was not iu tho house when he was there - Brofessor black said that porter a fermented liquor, and contained various qmntities of from four to ten per ceuc. of alcohol. The porter produced and bearing the bra-«d “ Rossb and M Oartby,” is hj rm nted alcoholic liquor.—Waker Devlin .-aid Hiat he paid for two g : assc« of ale for aud Ritch'e on the day referred to He also paid for the bottle of porter. Loth payments were made to Mrs Caizow. Mr Hagg tt said that he would be alne to fjiow most conc u ively that there wis no c is:.- under which uis Worship could convict. He m übfc have sai l something about the men— llitchie aud Devlin—whoi while there was a p rsou appointed by law for the express purpose of obtaining convictions, had taken upon themselves, under in-st-uccions wuich they declined to disclose, to go about as cqmmou info mauts or 3.1168 y but ss he hrul a. he left that to some of th ise legal gentlemen vvho might have a harder baH’o to tight than he hj id. On the three points on which he intended to base his defence- the defendant was entitled to an acquittal. In the first place it had not been shown that the i. occupied by defendant was not a I censed house ; on th »contrary the preanrap.ion was that it was a licensed house, as it had ha -n sworn to by informant that the q mgs bore the si n Bay Horse Hotel, and aHo the defendant’s name. Presumedly, it Vi as a licensed nonse till the contrary was proved —his Worship : The answer to that is that till you prove it is n .t a licened house, there is no presumption in the matter.—Mr Hagg tt : L am bound to prove nothing. It is for the prosecution to p- ovethat defendant is guilty and not for the defendant to prove ois innocence. 'lhe presumption must be that the man was innocent 111 it was proved that he was guilty.—His Worship: I pr sumo nothing. The general law is that the person to get the benefit of aa affirmative must prove it —Mr Haggitt replied that that law did not apply to a case of this kind—a quasi-criminal offence. The second point be urged was tba , tbe charge Jiust be dismissed as there was no proof that defendant permitted or suffered anythin -;, e S( ,ij on h, s premises ; iii'l cd a wit; ■ ■, had sworn defenduiit was not id the I u.so at; the time I he selling nust imply si . :e active part on ! part of the person cb ed and not an I Hg ncy. The wife’s agenc. only extended to : domestic affairs, and did net permit an unlawful act, Ihe third point was involved io ■ the second, viz. that the person acj cased must b we km wiedee of the I «a e. It was almost laughable to rend the 6th section of the act. The further the phraseology was considered, tlm more easy it became to tied points under j vvbuffi it would be impossible to draw up a j conviction. Ris Worship iu delivering | spoils for fully half-au-hour. He j said as to the fact-' nothin'' was sworn to but i whiit had taken place. He saw na room for I auy fau ; t to be found wTh the witnesses ; they were only discharging a public duty’ —though they might be engaged for that purpose for all he knew—’n giving information of the illegal sale of alcoholic liquor, in Regina v. Turner, it had been held that the affirmative must be pr wed, and not the negative ; hence in this case if defendant hel i a license be should have produced it autl thus proved the affirmative. It was quite unlikely that a barrel of beer, with bottles of porter and other things seen by the witness open for sale to all and sundry could be there without defendant’s knowiedge, The case was proved, and he could not inflict a less penalty than the general license fee, as any one guilty of the offence, not only defrauded the revenue, but cheated those who paid the license. The penalty he i inflicted to-day wmuld be the amount of the 1 license, but in future he would not consider that he was doing his duty to the public unless he inflicted the full penalty—Lso. Be- 1 fondant would be fined L2O and costs. 1 James Hyndman was charged ysith selling ! one ffiillmg’s worth of ale to Walter Devlin, oq Ottoker 36, he not being a licensed per- j

son —Mr Harris defended —Defendant was W..S uned L2O and costa. —Mr Harris gave notice of appeal.* ° A. ch irgo against W m Hall, of Bristol Hotel Cumberland street of selling a bottle ot p rter, was being proceeded with at four o clock.