MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2152, 7 August 1907, Page 1

MAGISTERIAL.

TUESDAY, AUGUST 0

(Beforo Mr. IV. A. Barton, S.M.)

Drunkonnoss. —James O’Reilly McCabe entered a plea of guilty to a charge of drunkenness, tliero being three previous convictions: against him for similar offences during the past G months. A fine of £3 with costs 2s was imposed, in default; 14 days’ imprisonment. In addition; a prohibition order to have force for twelve months was issued. —Defendant asked, that the order bo suspended for a few days, as he had a lot of material in hotels which ho would {have to claim. —The request was refused. Cycling on Footpaths-—Chas. Wootton was charged with cycling on a footpath.—Constable' Irwins deposed that on July 26th ho saw defendant cycling on a footpath. The roads were very muddy. A fine of 10s with 7s costs was imposed.—Charles Blackburn was similarly charged and fined. Alleged Drunkenness on ■ Licensed Premises. —Frank Harris wafe charged with having permitted drunkenness on liis licensed premises.—r Sergeant Williams deposed that on July 19th ho went to the Albion Hoteh Oh arriving there about S.oO p.m. looked through the principal entrance of the hotel, and saw a man named John Feeney in a state of;intoxication leaning over the bar of the hotel. There wero about half a dozen other customers in the bar at the time, and they wero evidently making fun of Feeney—putting pieces of bread and butter in liis' pockets, etc. Feeney had a plate in his hands, and was either licking it or trying to balance it on liis chin. Was being encouraged in this business by the barmaid, avho was laughing sand joking with the other occupants of the bar. Watched through the ; door for about ten minutes. Then entered the front bar, and taxed Feeney with being drunk. Then asked ‘the barmaid if she had supplied liquor to Feeney. The barmaid anstvered in the affirmative. On taking Feeney outside the bar-door, the | barmaid said it .was half an hour since she had supplied the drink. Took "Feeney outside and ho was arrested by Constable Pratt on a charge of drunkenness. Saw Feeney about 6.30 p.m. when ho was considerably under the influence of liquor.—To Mr Stock: When ho spoke to Feeney in the bar did not catch hold of him and twist him round. Led Feeney out of the bar by catching him with his fingers on Feeney’s coat-sleeve. It required two constables .to take Feeney to tho lock-up. Had heard since that Feeney was a lodger at tlie hotel. Was sure the barmaid did not say it was an hour since; she had served Feeney. Did not recognise any of the other men in the bar. — Constable Irwin doposed that on tho day in question at about 8.30 p.m. ho went to the Albion Hotel and saw Feeney in the public bar in a drunken condition. Went to the police station and then returned , a little later with the Sergeant and Constable Pratt. The Sergeant brought Feeney out and. ordered that lie be taken to the lock-up.—To Sergeant Williams: The three remained at the door of tho hotel about ten minutes. On tho second visit saw Feeney in the bar, licking a plate, The barmaid was in cliargo of tho bar. Saw no attempt to put Feeney out'. Heard the Sergeant ask the barmaid if she had supplied Feeney with liquor, and heard tho barmaid reply, “Not for half an hour.” Did not hear the barmaid roquest Feeney to leave the premises. Had not the slightest doubt about the man being drunk. — To Mr. Stock: Had not to carry Feeney to tho lock-up. Could not say if Feeney could have walked to the station. Would havo arrested him if he had met him in the street.

Feeney was leaning on the counter, but was not catching hold of it. Did not think there were any seats in the bar. —Constable Pratt corroborated the evidence of the two previous witnesses. —To Mr. Stock: ‘ Feeney had no chance to show whether he could walk by himself. Did not hear any conversation between the Sergeant and the barmaid. Would not have arrested Feeney if he had mot him 60 long as he made no disturbance. His condition might have escaped witness’s notice, Feeney was drunk enough to lock up for his ev n safety, but he was not too drunk 'f he had not far to go home. —G. G. Chisholm, clerk of the Magistrate's Court, gave evidence of the conviction of Feeney for drunkenness.—Mr. Stock asked that his objection to th ; s evidenco bo noted. —Mr. Stock said the defence would be that Feeney v- as

not drunk, and that no charge of permittng drunkenness on licensed

premises could lie in respect of a boarder in a hotel. Mi'. Justice Williams had laid it down that as a boarder had a right by contract with the licenseo to bo on the premises no charge could lio. If the police succeeded in this case, it would be competent for them to arrest boarders who wore drunk in their bedrooms. There was no differentiation in the Licensing Act between the different parts of a public-house. No conviction could bo recorded in this case’, because the person in charge of the bar did not know that the person complained of was drunk—knowledge of drunkenness had to be proved.— F. It. Harris, licensee of the Albion Hotel, deposed that Feeney had been a boarder in the hotel from July I<Knew Feeney previously, and when he came to the hotel witness gave instruction to the bar employees to see that Feeney did not got drunk. There were no seats in the bar. Did not know anything of Feeney’s arrest until ho was informed that it had taken place. Could not say wliat. condition Feeney was in.—Tlie S.M. objected to

taking evidence of a conversation Jietween witness and Feeney.—To the

Sergeant: Feeney did not engage the room for any specified time. Had Feeney not been arlesfed his room would have been available for him. Warned the bar employees because he knew Feeney was in the habit of drinking heavily when he came into town—To Mr. Stock: Kept a man specially to see that- no person became' intoxicated in the bar. Hat] discharged employees who had allowed drunkenness.—Charles Watt, stablekeeper, formerly engaged at Te Ivaraka' Hotel as barman, deposed that he,was in::the'Albion Hotel on the night in question, and saw Fee-

ney in tho bar. Feeney came into tho bar about 8 o’clock. Did not see

Feeney havo a drink. Was with bin

tlie>»whole time ho was in tho barHad some conversation with Feeney, who was speaking quito rationally. Did not considor ho was drunk. When file counter-lunch was brought in at 8 o’clock Feeney started eating and took snacks well up to tho time when he was arrested. , About 10 minutes

beforo the Sergeant arrived Feeney

refused to have a drink'with witness. Could namo four of the, men in the bar. There was sky-larking going. on but Feeney was not being baited. Feeney was able to walk about! Feeney was such a person that one would need to look twice at him to decide whether or not ho was sober. When tho Sorgeant arrived Feeney was facing the counter. The Sergeant to if: him by tho arm and turned him round, not very violently. , Fee-ley did not stagger. Did not hear Fee-

ney make any reply when accused by tlie Sergeant with being drunk. The barmaid told the Sergeant • she had not served Feeney for an hour previously. Feeney was not drunk enough to be arrested. —To the Sergeant : Was in the bar when Constable Irwin came through.! Did not see anybody put pieces of bread and butter in Feeney’s pockets. Had had conversations with the licensee since

tho occurrence.—Douglas : Barron, jockey, corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. Feeney had a peculiar way of talking, but his conversation was rational. —To tlie Sergeant: Had seen Feeney in the hotel a day or two previously. Knew Feeney had been drinking about town for two days prior to his arrest. Did not put bread in Feeney’s; pockets. It was not a fact that tiie others in the bar were making a fool of Feeney.—George Murray corroborated the ovidence given by witness Watt. Feeney refused a drink, and when he had finished his lunch he asked the company to have a drink. -The Sergeant came in just then. I —Harold Loughor gave evidence similar to that of the witness Watt.* Was in the hotel for about 10 minutes, and during that time Feeney came in. He walked from end to end of tho bar without*staggering.—Nellie i Holland, barmaid at the Albion Hotel, deposed that she remembered Feeney coming

into the bar about 8 o’clock. Did not serve him any drink. About 7.30 supplied him with a drink. At 8 o’clock saw nothing wrong : with his condition.. Had a good opportunity of seeing .whether he was sober. 'Would have had no hesitation in serving him with drink. Feeney had no drink between 8 o’clock and tlie arrival of the Sergeant. Feeney refused a drink offered by Watt. When the Sergeant» asked if Feeney had been served witness replied .that she had done so about an hour before. Witness was not making fun of Fee-ney'.—-The S.M. reserved judgment till • Friday morning. An Indecent Act. —Charles Campbell was charged with having committed an indecent act in a public place.—Constnblo Hancox .deposed that when crossing Kaiti Bridge at 5 o’clock on July 13th he saw accused committing the act, in full; view of everybody. Accused was under the influence of liquor at the time.—The police reported that accused had previously borne a good character. — Accused was bound over in a bond of £5 to answer the charge when called upon.

Maintenance in an Industrial School.—John Cassidy was ordered to pay 6s per week towards the upkeep of one of his boys at tho Caversham

Industrial School. Theft of a Swag.—James : Collingwood was convicted on a charge of stealing a swag, and was sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment. A Claim Dismissed. —The ■ case of J. Whin ray v. Albert Treves was called on. Plaintiff failed to: appear, and the claim was dismissed. , . Claim for Commission. —Common, Shelton and Co. (Mr. Stock) sued Thomas McGregor (Mr. Alston Coleman) for £ll 4s 3d, for commission.

—J. 13. Kells deposed; that his firm claimed commission even if parties arranged the value themselves. A. S. Waclismann, auctioneer and .stock agent for Dalgety and Co., said it >was his practice where stock jwas sold at valuation to claim commission. A case similar to the present one had never previously happened in bis experience.—H. 11. Hine, stock agent and auctioneer for Murray, Roberts and Co., gave similar evidence. He knew of a previous case on similar lines. —L. O. Ingram, auctioneer and stock agent for Common, Slielton and Co., corroborated previous witnesses as to the custom. —For the'defence defendant deposed that he sent authority to Mr. Kells to sell the farm, mentioning that the stock could he taken at valuation. Said nothing about commission. Paid commission on the sale of the land, hut considered plaintiffs had nothing whatever to do with the stock. The cattle were sold privately in his opinion. His statement, “stock taken at; valuation,” did not give authority to sell the stock.—J. W. Bright, majiager of the N.Z. L. and M.A. Co., said firms made their own rules in the matter

under dispute,-—G. If. Wyllie, auc-

tioneer and stock agent for Williams and Kettle said his firm would not charge commission on stock when no valuation had been made.—W. L. Clayton, commission agent, said l.e only charged commission on stock when he sold a place as a going concern. AVould not consider it fair to charge commission on the stock unless ho sold it. —Judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed and £2 14s costs.