CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4007, 29 December 1875, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

Wednesday, December 29. (Before H. S. Fish, Esq., J.P., and Captain Thomson, J.P.)

nyrw? UNKENNESB, ~ Davidson, James M Ilroy, and Edward Evans were each fined ss, with the alternative of twenty-four hours’ j imprisonment; Jaiims At’Deod and Thomas Collie each 10s, or forty-tight horns’. Sly Grog selling.— Michael Boland, for whom Mr Cook appeared, was charged with soiling, at his house in Walker street, on December 21, two shillings’ worth of beer, without a license.—John Tennant, the witness who was yesterday committed for contempt, was again called. In answer to Inspector Mallard, as te whether he wished to make any explanation of Lis conduct yesterday, he said he thought the Bench fined him rather too much. • Witness was then examined as an adverse witness, he denving that he had drunk beer in . defendants house in I horn ley’s company, al- - though the latter had sworn positively he had j done so. On being asked where he lived he said he did not live anywhere now—he lived in gaol yesterday. Ihe Inspector then threw up the witness’s examination and re called Thornley, the iuroimant, who again -wore that ho visited defendant’s house on the 21st inat., in company with '.ennant, He called for four glasses of beer, and was supplied by defendant, to whom he paid 2s. Ue di ank oue gla s, Boland drank one, i ennant drank one, and a strang'T the fourth.—Mr Cook submitted that the charge was not suffici-ntly substantiated. If the Bench disagreed with him he would ask for an adjournment, to enable him to call witnesses.— J he Bench could see no reasonable grounds fo ask for an adjournment. The case was adjourned from yesterday, and it was the duty of the defendant to bring any witnesses he wanted. There was no fair ground for asking for an adjournment to-day.—Tennant (from the body of the court): Ho is not guilty—l know that.-Mr Fish (addressing him): if you do not be quiet I -will send you to gaol for fourteen days for contempt of Court. T never witnessed such conduct on the part of any witness since 1 have been on the Bench as you have been guilty of both yesterday and to day— never.—Air Cook intimated that under the circumstances he would bo compelled to leave the case in the hands of the Bench. - The Bench were of opinion that the case was sull cicntly proved. There was no doubt in their minds as to tho truth of the evidence given by the witness Thornley. As to the other witness, as he (Mr Fish) had already expressed himself, he had never witnessed a more discreditable scene on the part of any witness since lie had been on the Bench. The Court declined to believe one word of his evidence, and had no doubt that he had committed perjury, Tho evidence of Thornley consequently stood alone and u.ncontradicted, and if the Bench believed that evidence there could bo no doubt that the offence was committed. It was only right that the licensed victualler, who paid a considerable sum for a license, whoso house was subject to the surveillance of the police, and who must do curtain things prescribe by law, shouJd be prorecced as against the sly grog-seller, as people ' of bad character there assembled knowing j that the house was not opoa to the polio?,

a matter of notoriety it was well known that defendant’s house had been used as a sly gro place for a considerable time, and defendant had before, either by himself or one of his employes, escaped with a mitigated fine. Taking into consideration all the surrounding circumstances of the case, the Bench would not be doing < heir duty unless they fined defendant in the full penalty of LSO It was to be hoped that the severity of the fine would be the m o ans of putting a stop to the illicit sale of drink,