RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3658, 12 November 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

Tsiirj'.snAV, jNuvicjibku 12. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq, K.M.) Dkukkrkxkss.—Bonj-uniu Coats wasfined 10s. with the alternative of four days’ im* orisoumeut ; George Let-mu was dismissed with a caution for the above offence, but for resistin'-.: the police he was due l LI. with the optionor lon tec; i d i s’ i mpri ;on in ;u t. 'Vacua c v.—rc-.iu Mumbey was charged wi.h having im vioibh means of supp .rtV— Accused said that lie had been lifteen years ui the pi ms, aud hacl been Jiving on his moans dur ng that time, which,“however, were u >w cx-austed. lie had no place of lodging, and although he had tried nearly every place of business in the town lie had been unsucsesa'ul in getting employment. His Worship said accused was aa able-bodied man, but, having been uaa' la to ihul work, although ho ha 1 trial to obtain it, ho (his Worship, must dismiss tho case. ri.v ciix; sm.uNc. William .dmuieth was charged, on the information of I’hiiip Ttitchie, wish havinj, on Uetoocr 21), suliored to be sold on his premises, at Ore. n island, sixpence worth of a!o, ho not being a person licensed under the Act of 1573. He was further charged by the same informant with sellingsixponce worth ofaio on Octob.r23 Mr E. Cook for defendant. —lnformant said that he remembered Friday! the 23rd October last. [Be then produced a note-bo ds: to refresh his memory.]—Mr Cook objected to his looking at it unless he first saw it.—Mib-Inspeolor Mallard said witness was justified in looking at the book, the memo having beau made at the time, and .Mr Cook charaetcrisea such c induct as “ infamous, and ho would venture to say scandalous." _ He mud test the witness’s veracity. —Bis Worship said counsel should not use such opprobrious cpi Diets without lirst proving that ha had cause to do so. Conns 1 would, never promote his own case by u ng unnecessarily harsh or severe language. He (his Worship) could not see •any cause to doubt the witness’s veracity. If witness wished to refresh his menory, counsel might look at the book first.—Witness then added that with one Devlin ho visited lie'e id ant’s In,use. which was s tuated at the Cham Hills cud of the Green island tunnel, oa the day mentioned. Each of them was supplied by defendant with a glass of ale, ami etch paid sixpence f >r his own drink! i'hcy again visited the place on Octopor 2(5, and were served by one Aider, cock to defendant. With ale. Mach a van pad sixpence for his own drink. Mr" Cook, in speaking for the defence, s dd that common infonuers. such as Bitchie and Devlin, stimulated and even tempted persons to commit crime. The defendant w.is templed hy the men to soli the liquor. What the miss of the people must think of su.h disgraceful conduct war, perfectly evident. He submitted that there was not sulfieiont evidence that the liquor supplied was ale, and that sufHc eut credence could not lie put on the witness’s evidence to allow of couvicti.n.— His \\ orsh p raid he had no doubt that defendant, an unlicensed person, had supplied the men with two pints of be-.r on October 23. It had been urged 1 y o-mmol for the defence that the charnc-er of the witnesses for tho prosecution was such that they could not bo relied u. cm, but he could Bee no reason to doubt their testimony. The

remarks as to common informers were not at all applicable now. th- tluy might have been a century ago, when there was ” 110 police m Enghao i. ana who 1 tlm ddec ivo administration of law was admitted. tie men bad simply acted in Mu; capacity of dctec sves, so as to oerect the illicit liquor trdlio, and Lid ma le uo representations, liiey had no interest in the pena'ty, it was not to be divided w.tb them, and they were doing a fair and reasonable dutv and in a fair and reasonable way. lie coiiil not help j behoving that defendant was gniffy *.f con- 1 traveutbm. as stated in the infonnaii 11 the deferdant, wh.le acc'inmo huirg Mm workmen, ha I also supplied tln.ni with hqnor : fence the number uf distarhames in the loc.-rhty which had ben brought to light m this Court. Defendant was lined L2O and costs on the lirsb information, and LlO and costs on the other —Mr Cook asked if his Worship had taken note that the liquor in the second case was supplied by a person not the defendant—l!is Worship: I have no doubt that there has been a regular supply. Tliis is the worst case I have had yet. and I think 1 have been exceedingly lenient in limiting the fine to L2O I look upon a man opening a s l ore in a private place and near a railway as exceedingly bad.

i'iieanor Colling was charged with permitting Ida Guthrie, on Mctoher 20, to sell 0110 rh ding's worth of ale, she being an unlicensed persen. A secmd offence charged her with permitting sixpence worth of rum to b; sold on the same day. Defendant keeps a place at the earner of ;,he Kaikorai and Green Is’and road;.; and on tiie dale me turned Devon and Kiichie were supplied wilh-the liquor, as sta'ed, by a litfc : o girl Cr luilon, for the defence, urged that itwas noc allege lor proved that"the liquor was sold on defendant's behalf.— i;is Worship said ho could have got over the defect by adding the words ‘ o i her behalf,” JBut it Was not piovcd that the house was occupied by detendaut; the only way in which lur-i Collin* was connected with the metier wa. Hi; strt.min by Devlin that he saw her n tiie house. —The case was dismissed. A chirge against Rob.rt Mitchell, of Anderson’s iliy, of selling a!c oa Cdohir 2 J, was next proceeded with.