CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3798, 27 April 1875, Page 3

CITY POLICE COURT.

Tdesdat, April 27. (Before Messrs H. R. Pish. jnn„ andP. H. Learv. Esq.s, J.P.s.) Drunkpnness.—Mary M'Carthy was discharged with a caution. Stealing Fi.om a Till.—John Gately was charged with stealing from the bar of the Scotia Hotel the sum of 12s 6d, the property of James Richmond, on or about April 21.—Prisoner was left in the bar by Mrs Richmond, who found occasion to leave it for a few minutes. When she left 12s 6d was in the till tied up in a piece of the STAR, «nd when she returned it was gone, as was the prisoner. The latter was seen by a witness named Prothendgeto throw away a piece of paper, and on its •j ln S u j and shown to Mrs Richmond, she identified toe paper as the ea&C as that in

which the money had been placed —Prisonei was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labor. ’ Alleged Blt-Grog Selling.—Before the sly-vrog cases wore gone into, Mr Fish sad I with reference to the point raised by Mr Cook yesterday in arrest of judgment in the case • oiice v. Shepherd (that the information was bad, inasmuch as it did not contain the words “on iiiS behalf”), that the Bench were of opinion that, while it should have had the wo ds in it, the Court could at any time, either before or after the case was proceeded with amend the information. They therefore saw no grounds to interfere with the conviction. The information could even be amended afi er a conviction.—Michael Boland, for whom Mr Barton appeared, was charged with suffering to be sold on his behalf two glasses of ale on the Bth inst. The beer was supplied by one Thom i s Henwood to Kevenued 'onatables Hagan and Wood at a place known as the Eagle Tavern Stafford street, and a shilling was paid for it’ Henwood swore thai defendant, who was a friend of his, was ill on the day in question and he was attending on him. Boland did not know that the beer was sold, nor had he given witness authority to sell. The Bench were of opinion that the case must fall to the ground as it would appear from Hejiwood’s testimony that defendant had not sanctioned the sale of the beer. Henwood was not a set vaut of defendant, and the beer was not sold on the latter’s behalf.—lnspector Mal.ard, without having any personal feeling in the matter, thought their Worships must see the difficulty the police now had in getting convictions under the Licensing Ordinance. He understood their Worships t© rule that if a man had m his house a servant who sold liquor ftDQ. the servant swore that his employer was not aware of fhe liquor having been sold, then the latter could not be punished.—The Bench pointed out that it was not proved that Henwood was a servant in defendant’s employ. Had it been so proved they would have caused a conviction. They could not say Henwood had told an untruth; he had sworn that he was only a friend, and not a servant of defendant. Inspector Mallard : Then your Worships rule that the police must not summon the proprietor of the house. They must summon the servant—the person who sells.—Mr Leary : That’s not the decision of the Bench.— Inspector Mallard: No, your Worships dismiss the case. Of course it would be rude for me to say any more. 1 know what you mean —Mr Kish was of opinion that the best course to pursue would he to summon the person who sold the diink. If servants were made aware that unless they paid the penalty in the event of a flue, the Bench, after finding that there were no effects to distrain upon, would commit them to prison, they would act more cautiously. Inspector Mallard asked that a second charge against Bolan be withdrawn, as it stood on precisely the same footing.—Mr Fish ; Very well. I should recommend the police to proceed against the witness Henwood.—lnspector Mallard replied that he might be in Melbourne before they could do so; and the Bench said they would be quite justified in issuing a summons returnable at a very short time.—On the charge against Benjamin Perry, for whom MiBarton also appeared, being called on Inspector hlallard asked, ■as the case was iu the same category as the last, and as their Worships were of opinion that a person having been once fined it was not advisable to proceed on a second charge that he be allowed to withdraw the case. The charge was accordingly withdrawn. —Jane Collins, of Kaikorai, was charged with selling on her premises, at Kaikorai, two glasses of beet on April 15. Mr Turton defended. It being proved that the premises belonged to defendant’s mother, the Bench held that the case must fall through. Leave was granted to the police to strikeout the words “ on her behal f ” in an offence alleged to have been committed on April 19. Mr Turton pointed out several defects in spelling in the summons served on defendant. Mr Fish replied that the summons was not a creditable production, and should not have left the Court. It was not the work of the clerk to the Court. Mr Turton then complained that he would need an adjournment for further proof, in consequence of the amendment made. The case was accordingly adjourned till Thursday. Elizabeth Arrow was charged with suffering to be sold on her premises at Oaversham, on April 14, two glasses of beer, she being a person not duly licensed. Mr Barton defended. The drink had been sold by a girl named Allen in defendant’s employ. Before and after the alleged sale Mrs Arrow had refused to sell drink to informant. Mrs Arrow was standing close by when the beer was sold, and informant and Constable Woods deposed that they were of opinion that she must have seen what transpired.—The Bench considered the case proved, and fined defendant L2O and costs. —Mr Barton argued that if the case was carried to a higher Court the decision could not be upheld. In the summons should have appeared the words ‘You not having sold it as perfumeries, and not being a chemist, druggist, or apothecary, and sold it for medicine.” They could not negative proviso 6, the clause which necessitated this being in the information. It was only a crime to sell alcoholic liquor provided it was not sold for any of the above purposes, and this must be negatived in evidence, which was not done.—Mr Fish: The points you have now raised might have been raised earlier. As they are of such importance, the Bench must give them some consideration. —Mr Barton replied that, had the prosecution been raised before, the Bench might have called evidence to disprove that defendant was neithei a chemist nor perfumer. No doubt they had a shrewd suspicion that such was the case.—The Bench suspended judgment till Friday, when they would give a decision.