Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume VI, Issue 32, 28 August 1884, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

Wednesday, August 27th, 1884. (Before R. Ward, Esq., R.M.) BREACHES OF THE LICENSING ACT. Police v Samuel Rowley. — Defendant was charged with being drunk in a public place in the Borough of Feilding on the i 15th August. Mr Prior appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Constable Gillespie deposed to seeing defendant drunk iv Fergusson street on the date named. Cross-examined : They passed each other in the street ; this was about dinner time ; he was quite drunk ; did not lock him up, as he was always getting drunk, and would have to be locked np every day ; thought it his duty to issue a summons. The defence was that defendant was not out of his house on the day mentioned and that he did not take any intoxicants that day, and that therefore there was no evidence of the charge. Defendant was allowed to make his owu statement . Felt unwell, and went for a walk about seven in the morning ; had to go back home and go to bed ; did not go out into the street again that day, and did not touch anything of an intoxicating nature. By the Bench : Did not go to Mr Keen's and speak to the constable on that day. Case dismissed without prejudice. Defendant was further charged with a similar offence on the 16th of August. Mr Prior defended, and said he had advised defendant to plead guilty. Constable Gillespie gave similar evidence to that given in the previous case. Fined 5s and costs 9s ; also, expenses of a witness, 10s. George Know les was charged with two cases. of drunkenness, to each of which he pleaded guilty, and was fined 5s and 7s respectively, with costs. W. S. Staite was charged with being drunk at the Denbigh Hotel on August 23rd. Defendant pleaded not guilty. W. Wapp, of Halcombe, deposed to seeing defendant drunk as charged ; had some drinks with bim. | By defendant: They were together most of the day ; had dinner at defendant's house ; witness was not sober himself. Wm. Briskey, of Halcombe, gave evidence of defendant being drunk on the above date ; witness was sober himself. Defendant stated bis case, and called Charles Roe, proprietor of the Denbigh Hotel, who could only say that he did not see defendant drunk on that day. Frederick Roe deposed that defendant was not drunk. By the constable : Defendant was perfectly sober. Esteven Beilve, proprietor of the Empire Hotel, deposed as to defendant being at his hotel about six o'clock, but he was not drunk. Defendant was then put into the box, and deposed that he was acting for Mr Wapp in a District Court case ; was in his company most of the day ; saw him off by train ; bought some groceries on his way home, and was perfectly sober. The constable asked defendant several questions, which failed to bring out sufficient evidence of the charge, which was then dismissed. G. A. Gray was charged with selling liquor without a license to Geo. Knowles. Ca-*-e adjourned for further evidence. Gray was further charged with supplying liquor on the Oth August to VV. S. Staite, the latter being a prohibited person under the Licensing Act. W. S, Staite deposed to ordering a keg of beer for his wife, as she required it for her health ; it was booked to his wife. Constable Gillespie deposed to having spoken to defendant about supplying liquor to Mr Staite, as the order against him extended to Bulls. Defendant gave evidence as to being asked by Mr Staite to supply him with some beer; said he could not as Staite was prohibited ; was then asked to supply Mrs Staite, which he afterwards did. By the constable : Mr Staite paid for the liquor, and also for the breaking of the keg. His Worship said he was of opinion there had been a breach of the Act, as although the beer was supplied ostensibly for Staite's household, it had been sold to him. Fined 40s and costs 9s. Charles Roe, proprietor of the Denbigh . Hotel, Was charged with haying . hi* house open for the. sale of liquor on Sunday. 24th in*. He was further charged with supplying liquor out of the legal hours to Charles Hodges, the latter' not being a traveller or boarder. Mr Hankins appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty to both charges. Constable Gillespie gave' evidence for the prosecution in both, cases, and wa? closely cross-examined. The defence was that there was no evidence of the actual sale of liquor. - Charles Hodges was called, but said he did not see any drink sold ; he did not have any himself. 'I he charge of selling liquor was dismissed. For the defence to tbe charge of having the bar open for the sale of liquor on Sunday, Frederick Rowley deposed as to being called to the Denbigh Hotel on the day named to repair a blind in the bar ; that was the reason it was opened ; there was no liquor being served. Frederick Roe deposed a« to giving the last witness the key of the bar to enable iiim to get to the blind, and particularly charging him to lock it again. W. S. Staite deposed as to meeting

any of the drink was intended for a prohibited person. " Defendant was called, but denied having supplied Mr Staite with liquor; whenever he had called for drink he had invariably served with ginger ale. His Worship said he felt bound to convict on the charge of supplying, and would dismiss the charge of selling. Fined £5 and costs, and also expenses of witnesses, via., 18s each and mileage. Estevcn Beilve was charged with having sold liquor on the 23rd August to W. S. Staite, and was further charged with having supplied the same person with drink. Mr. Staite appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty to both charges. W. Wapp gave evidence of being with Briskey and Staite at the Empire Hotel j the latter called for drinks ; witness had beer and Staite had brandy ; Mr Beilve supplied them. Cross-examined: Would swear Staite called for brandy and had it, but couldn't say what his second drink was. W. Briskey said they all three went in and Staite called for the drinks j they were all brandies. : Cross examined: The drink Staite had looked like water. [Being shown a glass of- ginger ale, witness said ifc was like that.] W. S. Staite, sworn, said both witnesses had committed wilful perjury; the drink he had was peppermint ; had no intoxi-osting liquor at Bellve's that For the defence, Esteven Beilve, defendant, was called, and deposed as to supplying Staite with two peppermints and nothing more. Both charges were dismissed. CIVIL CA.BES. James Bull. v. W. Whisker.— Claim £23 17s lOd. This case was brought on at the last -sitting of the court, and adj ourned. Mr Prior said he was instructed by-Mr Ksani on behalf of plaintiff to apply for a nonsuit. Mr Staite appeared for defendant. Nonsuited with costs. H. Hughes v Tawhia. -Claim £9 10s for goods. Mr Prior for plaintiff. It appeared the' goods had been returned, and it was now a question of costs. Order made for payment of plaintiffs costs and counsel's fee. G- Crichton v J. Buchanan. — Claim £4 19s. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff and costs. Kirton and Curtis v Amos Burr.— Claim £4 4s. Mr Prior for plaintiffs. No appearance of defendant. W. Beading proved the claim, which was ordered to be paid with costs. W. Whisker v. Higgins and Nicholson. Claim 14s. Judgment for plaintiff and costs. S.Nelson v Hamuera. -Claim £15 17s 6d. Mr Prior for plaintiff and Mr Hankins for defendant. Mr Hankins asked for an adjournment on the ground of the unavoidable absence of defendant through illness. Case adjourned till next court day, on the usual conditions. Same v Tapita. -Claim £36 10s ld. Mr Prior for plaintiff and Mr Hawkins for defendant. Both parties were examined and crest-examined at length, after which plaintiff was nonsuited with costs. The court then adjourned.