POLICE COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1864, 19 September 1906, Page 3

POLICE COURT.

DRUNKENNESS.

( Before Mr W. A. Barton, S M.)

A foreigner named Charles O’Moareh ias Daniels, was lined 10s and costs for ■unkenness, in default forty eight hours nprisonmeiu. ALLEGED AVI EE DESERTION.

A young man named John .Lemmon was charged with unlawfully desorting his wife at Auckland without providing for her maintenance. Sergeant AVilliams applied for a remand to Auckland until Friday.

Defendant otl'ered no objection, and tho application was granted. Defendant is a painter by trade and was in employment in Gisborne. ILLEGALLY ON HOTEL PREMISES.

Two young men, Archibald Pool and Henry Pool, were charged with being 'ound on licensed premises without a 'easonable excuse. Defendants pleaded p:' ity and were each fined 20s and costs. A DEFENDED CASE.

In tho case of John Godfrey, charged with being found on licensed premises on Sunday 9th, defendant pleaded not guilty, Mr G. Stock appearing on his behalf, Sergeant AVilliams conducted tho prosecution

Archibald Pool, tailor, stated that he was in the Record Reign Hotel on Sunday evening last at half-past nine. He was

in company with his brother in a little room at tho back of the bar parlor. He saw the defendant there and also two other persons, whom he dill not know, The licensee was in the room.

By Air Stock : Defendant was in the ■oom when witness went in.

lenry Pool gave corroborative evidence,

Air Stock contended that a person had a right to enter a hotel on Sunday, provided he did not do so for an unlawful purpose. In the present case the defendant, who is an accountant, kept the licensee's books and was in the hotel on tho Sunday morning for that purpose. Defendant gave evidence to this effect. Ho kept tho books of several hotelkeepers in the town, and in the case of Air Burke he usually did the work on Sundays.

By Sergeant Williams : Ho did not see he police come in. He heard tho police :atl come in and ho went into an adjoinng room Ho did this at the request of

the licensee. The room he entered was in darkness He could not say whether it was a bedroom Air Stock said that in a recent decision delivered it had been held that the police must prove that a person was on tho

premises for an unlawful purpose. In reserving his decision Air Barton asked counsel for the defendant to look up the case referred to. THE MAINTENANCE ACT.

In the case of Alice Single v. Charles Single, an application for a separation and maintenance, Air Blair applied for an adjournment, as the defendant .was at pro-

sent undergoing a term of imprisonment. The application was adjourned until

October Bth, ALLEGED EMBEZZLEMENT

A young man named Sydney Herbert Eddell, a butcher by trade, was charged with receiving various sums of money and failing to account for tho same to Alary Elizabeth Beavis Detective Aladdern appeared for the prosecution and Mr T, Alston Coleman for the defence.

Evidence was given by Elizabetli Johnston and Alary Davy in regard to payments meat accounts made to defendant. 11. Beavis, G. Bartlett and Elizabeth Beavis gave evidence as the different entries in the cash book.

Accused reserved liis defence and was committed to take his trial at the next criminal sitting of the Court at Gisborne.

A POLICEMAN’S RIGHT.

Joseph Burke, licenses of the Record Reign Hotel, Gisborne, was charged with refusing to admit, without any unnecessary delay, Walter William), a constable ia the execution of his d ity, demanding to enter a room in tho hotel in pursuanoo of section 184, of the Licensing Act, 1881, Mr G. Stock appeared for the defendant.

Sergeant Wdliams deposed that on the evening of the 96b, in company with Constables O’Hara and Hanoox, ha visited the Record Reign Hotel. He sent Constable Hanoax to the beck of the hotel, and with Constable O'Hara went inside the hotel. As they got int.i the passage a man came out of the parlor and said, " Go out quick, Hancox is round at th 9 back ia plain olothes.’’ Witness took it, as they were all in plain clothes, that the man did not recognise Constable O'Hara and himself. Jnet then two ycuog men named Poole, cams out of the bar parlor, end witness took iboir names. The lioenaoo aftsrwa-ds came from the back of the bouse. Witness for the bar parlor door to be unlocked, and aftor four or fivo | minu'es’ delay this was done. Witness afterwards visited the commercial room and another room, where ho took the names of several boarders. Goiog back he saw another roum. lending into the eommfrcial room, and the door being lockod, he askrd to bo admitted. Da-

fondant stated that rho room was his own private room, and that his daughtrr w s ihero a-leep. Witnoia prrsisird in his dints to enter, but was denied admi-sior. Gross examined by Mr Stcck, witoosß said that if there wore aoy persons inside the private room they had plenty of time to leave whilst ho wu3 taking tho names of tbs boai'Jon?. Beyond seeing the two men Poole, and catching a glimpse of a third man, who ought have beau tho landlord, th.re wr>s nothing to cause him to susp:ct that anyone was hidden in tho pcivr.to room. Evidence was also givon by Constables O'dlvra mod Ilancox. Mr Stock contended that there was no oaso to answer. From the evidence tho S.-rgoant could not have had aoy reason to suspect that anyone was in tbs private room. Ha had no earthly reason for supposing eo, except for seeing two men in tbo passage and catching a glimpse of a third, The presence of the men on licensed premises con'd not be regarded as an effmoe against the licensee. Gouneoi quoted several authorities in support Sergeant Williams said the presenoo of the men on tho promUfß and the statement of tho licsose: that his daughter was asleep in ths rocm, when it was Bhown that this was not so, wer9 sufficient in themselves to suspeoi that the police weio kept out of tho room For a purpose. Tbore was also the fact o' tbo leDgth of time wh'ch it Seek the licenaoa to open She b»r p arior door. Mr Barton said he would not call upon Mr Stock for any defence. Is wa3 inoum' bent on tho police to show that there were reasonable grounds for supposing that an effanc? was bsiDg committed, and this they had failed to do. In his opinion the police had no reasonable grounds for supposing that thero was anyone in the room, and the information would be dismissed.