MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume I, Issue 80, 2 September 1874, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Wednesday, September 2. [Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.] DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. William Galvin, for drunkenness, was fined 20s, or forty-eight hours. Robert Palmer 10s, and Charles Arthur, his first offence, was discharged with a caution. DRUNK AND ILLEGALLY ON PREMISES. Edward King, charged with being drunk and illegally on the premises of Mrs Mann, Tuam street east, was fined 20s or twentyfour hours. DRUNK AND INSULTING FEMALES. William Tibbs was charged with this offence, Constable Beck stated that the previous evening the prisoner was pointed out to him by a female as having insulted her in Colombo street. Two little girls also complained of the man having insulted them. The female gave evidence of the man having placed his hands on her shoulder the previous night in Colombo street. He also used some insulting expression to her and she told Constable Beck of this, who took him into custody. The man was drunk at the time. Inspector Buckley told his Worship that the prisoner had been drinking for about a fortnight. His wife was in the Immigration barracks, and he would not return to her. His Worship that it was most scandalous that respectable females could not walk along the streets without being insulted. There had been a number of complaints lately of this sort of thing, and he was determined to put a stop to it. Prisoner would he fined 60s, and in default, one week’s imprisonment.

LYTTELTON. Tuesday, September 1. [Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M.] SLAUGHTER-HOUSE LICENSE, Mr Parkinson applied for a license for section 2598 Kaituna Valley, and also for one for the section at Slaughter-house Point. The Bench granted the first application, and the second was adjourned for a week. The Bench said that in the latter case the Board of Health should have a voice. DRUNK. Robert Douglas, a seaman, was charged with this offence. The evidence of Mr Robinson was taken, who said accused was drunk and fell through his shop window. Fined the amount of damages, which were paid. BREACH OF THE PUBLIC HOUSE ORDINANCE. Stephen Baily was charged with this offence. Mr H. N. Nalder for defendant. Sergeant O’Grady stated that he heard of men lighting in the street on Sunday afternoon, and went to the Albion and found the front door open, and If or 15 men inside one of the rooms. He took their names. Mr Baily got rather excited. He went to Baily’s because he was assured there was fighting going on in the neighbourhood, but he did not see it. By Mr Nalder—The front door was shut. Did not know if it was latched. Did not know if the bar was open. Did not try the bar door, and so did not know whether it whether it was locked or not. Had not received any information of Ordinance being infringed. Had not sent constable round to kitchen door. No one was drinking in the commercial room. No glasses were on the table. Several half-pints were on the counter of the bar. No one was there. Did not see the barman. Andrew Hermanson, A. 8., said he lived in Lyttelton. He knew the Albion. Was there on Sunday afternoon sitting in apublicroom. He and two others went to the Albion. They got in at the front door off London

street. Went in to get glasses of beer. Saw two men go out of the front room when they saw the police coming. The landlord was near the window when Sergeant O’Grady came. He was not a lodger. He saw no drink given to anybody. By Mr H. N. Nalder—Went in by the private door. Saw the landlord and asked for drinks, and he refused to give them. They got none there during the day. Re-examined by police—lt was a private room. Had no difficulty in getting into the house. John Gordon, a pile driver living in Lyttelton. said he was in the Albion on Sunday, 23rd, about a quarter of an hour before Sergeant O’Grady. Went in by the back way. The door was shut when he went in, not bolted. In the morning had a glass with Mr Bailey ; only Mr Baily was there. It was given to him. Had no more that day in that public house. Was talking with Mr Baily when Sergeant O’Grady was there. Saw no drink served. Was a visitor only. By Mr Nalder—Was an old lodger. Went into the private room and talked with Mr Baily, and Mr Baily gave him a glass of drink. The glass was given in friendship. Was there when the police came. Had no drink and saw none served. Saw no drink served that afternoon. Heard that the bar was locked. Mr Baily said he had the key in hi s pocket. Was not sure that the key was pulled out when police came. By the Bench-Most of the people present were boarders; did not know what they were doing. Wm. Webb stated he was a resident in Lyttelton. Was in the Albion on 23rd Aug. Saw sergeant O’Grady there. Was sitting down when police came in. Saw two or three gentlemen there. Went in through the kitchen, and walked straight in. Went there to see a friend. Did not go to have a drink. Had none and asked for none. Went in to see Mr B. Hill. Went in with Thompson. Remained after police left. Had no drink there on Sunday, the 23rd. Did not go to the bar. There were some boarders then in the house. He was neither a lodger nor a traveller that day. He lived 400 yards from the house. Joseph Thompson asked expenses, bnt the Bench said that if he loafed about publichouses on Sunday he must take the consequences. Recollected going to the Albion ; was there when the police entered. Webb went in at the back door ; tried to get drink and failed. Saw Mr Baily ; asked for old tom, Mr Baily said he would not serve him. Did not see the police in the house; did not hear the police mentioned. Did not have that day any drink in that house. Being refused drink, went away, and did not return that night to that house. Constable McGorman called, said—He remembered going to the Albion on the 22nd and 23rd instant; went into the back yard, and then went into the parlor. Saw some people there. Heard the bell rang for tea. He was in uniform at the time. By Mr Nalder—Went to the back door; it was usual to do so in Christchurch. Had no information of a breach of the peace in that public house. Saw druaken men in the streets in the neighborhood, fighting. Sergeant O’Grady said the police were grossly insulted continually in the execution of their duty, and many people behaved in a most ungentlemanly way towards them. For the defence, Mr Nalder called first B. McGill, the barman at the Albion. He was in the bar washing glasses from dinner, when the police came. The door was locked when the police came in ; no drinks were served to his knowledge. By police—lt was five when police came. Was washing up glasses used at 1 o’clock. He had been in bed at dinner time unwell. Had served no drink to sailors that day. Mr Jones, lodger in the Albion, said he was there when the police came in, in a back room; saw no drinks served except to boarders; about fourteen or fifteen were present; the back door was usually used. By police—Went out that day by front door; did not know whether any drinks were served. Would like to ask •whether he was allowed to invite friends into public house on Sunday. Mr Haynes, the next witness, said he was there when the police came; saw no drink served; had tea at half-past 5; did not remember any remarks about bar when police came in. By police—Saw no drink served when he was there. Mr Gallagher, sworn, said he was in the hotel that day; was sitting in the parlor, but saw no drink served; had been through the commercial room. By police—Was out much during the day, and did not know whether drink was |served or not. Sergeant-major O’Grady said that by clause 24 houses must be closed to people who liye within three miles of the house. He thought that when people went in they went in to drink, Mr Nalder said the police had not proved that any drinking had taken place. The question was, whether a publican had the right to keep his door open on Sunday. He maintained there was nothing in the Ordinance compelling a publican to keep any door closed, except the bar door, on a Sunday. The Ordinance distinctly stated, that a bona fide lodger or traveller could get in or out of a public house where he was lodging or calling. How was this to be done if the door was closed ? Was the publican to put his head out of an upstairs window and demand the name and business of the person applying for refreshment or lodging, before he admitted him ? If the police were right in their reading of the Ordinance, this must be the case. The evident object of the Ordinance was, to restrict the sale of spirituous liquors, not to cause inconvenience to the public. He maintained that if the door of the taproom and bar were shut, the object of the Ordinance was fulfilled. He would also like to know if people lodging in public houses were notallowed to invite their friends to visit them on Sunday. The Bench said that undoubtedly, friends might visit people lodging in public houses, though they might not drink with them. In this case, nothing was proved against accused. The police were perfectly justified in trying to obtain admittance, as it was the only way a conviction could be obtained—at the same time, the only way in which a conviction could be obtained was by the sale of liquor. Any person had a perfect right to enter a public house on a Sunday, if not going to drink. The case would be dismissed. ASSAULTING POLICE IN THE EXECUTION OP THEIR DUTY. Mr Baily was charged with this offence. Constable Morgan remembered the 23rd of August. Went to see if the provisions of Public House Ordinance were carried out. He saw Mr Baily. Mr Baily caught him by the shoulder and ordered him out of the

house. Both accused and his wife said the police had no business there. They should have knocked at the door. By Mr Nalder—Was in the passage looking into the room. Had received no information against the house, but had seen drunken men fighting opposite. Sergeant O’Grady said he heard Constable McGorman say, “ Take your hands off me, Mr Baily.” Mr Baily was very much excited. He reasoned with him. By Mr H. N. Nalder—He heard the constable say something about taking Mr Baily to Court. Sergeant O’Grady appealed to the Bench to protect the police in the execution of their duty. Mr Gallagher was called by Mr Nalder for the defence. He heard some one say, “If you insult me I’ll lock you up.” By Police—He may have said assault instead of insult. Mr Baily made a statement to the effect that he was excited when Constable McGorman told him he would lock him up. Mr Nalder said it turned upon clause 34 of the Ordinance. He would help the police to the utmost in the execution of their duty, but when they exceeded it, the law must step in. N© wonder the landlord was irritated when two policemen rushed into the house just at tea time, one at the back door and the other at the front. The fact that two drunken sailors were fighting near, did not entitle the police to enter a house if they did not know that liquor was supplied from that place. The police had no right to enter the house without some certain information. He submitted that no assault had been made. The Bench stated that the Act certainly carried out Mr Nalder’s objection, that the police must enter upon information obtained. Case dismissed, USING THREATENING AND INSULTING LANGUAGE. Blackmore v Blackmore. Mr H. N. Nalder for plaintiff. The complainant said the accused was his wife ; they were separated. She came to Mr Tompkins’, where he was lodging, and used horrible language, on Saturday night last, and said she would burn the house under him. Could not get lodgings anywhere in consequence of the annoyance his wife caused. He paid 17s 6d a week regularly for her maintenance. A witness called corroborated complainant’s evidence. The case was adjourned for a fortnight, the Bench stating that if defendant annoyed the prosecutor in the interval she would be tieverely punished. FIGHTING IN PUBLIC STREETS ON SUNDAY. W. DawSon and A.' Campbell were charged with this offence. It occurred on the wharf. Accused were fined: Dawson 20s, and Campbell 5s ; 7s 6d costs, 7s 6d for witnesses, and 3s boat-hire.