CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4064, 6 March 1876, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

Monday, March 6 (Before V. Pyke, Esq . R.M., and Dr. Niven, J. P.>

Drunkenness.—For this offence John Bell wai fined 10a o>- three days’; George Williamson, 40s or fourteen days’, and for being a hj ihitu.il ard fourteen days’ additional; and Peter Beitz 20s or seven days’. Breach of the Licensing. Ordinance.— Thomas Oliver was charged «:n remand with haying, on Sunday, 27th of February, suff red tube drunk In his licensed h<u-e, the ruc'sex Ho'el, Ge- rge i-tre< t, two gla-rer and one pint of beer by Thomas Mayne, Bbbert Brown, and John Knowles, they not bei g lodgers or travel ers—lOntrary to section 33 of the Licensing Ordinance of 1865. There was another charge against' < horn as (liv. rof aupplying Thomas v-. ayne with one pint of beer whfle in a state of intoxication, con<rary to section 49 of the U'-ensing Ordinance of 1865. SubInspector Mallard conducted the prosecution; Mr Harris defended.—-From the evidence or i 'omtible Gilb rt it appear.-d that h- saw the three men enter the Sussex Hotel on the day in question, Thomas Mayne being evidently drunk, a itness went in after them, »n1 saw defendant’s barman se>ve them with beer, which one of them paid for.—John Knowles sa d he and the other men went into the hotel and had some 1 eer. Th■ human did uot ask If they w-Te trav-ileis before serving them. —ln defence accused said that on returning from a walk on the 27th nit he saw Constable Giibe t g ing into his house and followed,- him. There he saw the three men witu be r before th-m, and on Constable Gilbert saying Mayne was intoxicated witness tok his pnt away from him Witness always told his barman not to i-erve anyone but lodge, s and travellers .on a Sunday.—The barman s«ore that he aske I the meu if they wen travellers, to which th-y replied ih tne atfiimative; and this evidence was conoburated by »> lodger in the h>use, who (-aid he heard the question and answer.—^The Bench thought both charges had bqen clea ly proved, but as .it appealed the batman had asked if the tmee men were travellers the nominal fine of 20s w-'uild bn inflicted. Hotel-keepers, however, muit prosecute that inquiry to cos tomers further than is ueu*),. and non m°ro!y ask in an iudiffe ent manner if they are travellers. The second offence was a more se ions one, and on it def< nd >nt would be' fined 40s. Them.—George JS'ares was changed with having on Fobru-ry Bth stolen the sum!of 2s 6d, the property of John S .ow, of the M. sgiel Hotel, Mos^ie 1 . Sub-Inspec r or Mallard j roS’.cute l; Mr E. Cook defended Alfred Bc> ivener, f?m laborer, said that on the Bth nit be was in the Mopgiel Hotel and saw misoner g > b< hind the bar twice and take money out of the till. Witness told the landlady of it, and he accused prisoner of taking the money, wh>said he had token only half a-crown, and returned it-to her.—Mr Cook cautd not shake witness’s 'testim my, and pis >ner was ten: te ced to seven days’ imprisonment with hard labor.

Alleged Assault.— John Wright, a boy of fifteen, charged John Donaldson, in whose service be was, with assaulting, beaiiug, «ud swearing at him. Mr Cook defended.— Afte* evidence had been given by prosecutor, the Bench dsmissed the case as too paltry to be ( bi ought iito Court. ‘