MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume V, Issue 536, 7 March 1876, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Tuesday, March 7. (Before G. L. Hellish, Esq, R.M., and G. Leslie Lee, Esq., J.P.) • Drunkenness. —The following inebriates were dealt with :—John Hayes was fined 40s, being a frequent offender; James Roskruge, who was also charged with resisting the police, was fined 40s ; Patrick O’Shanessey was fined 5s ; Daniel J ones was fined ss; Josiah Hodges was fined ss. False Pretences. —Thomas Foster was charged with obtaining a clock from Mr Lewis, of St Albans, by means of false pretences. The prisoner had been remanded from yesterday at his own request, in order to obtain the attendance of witnesses, and of a solicitor. Inspector Feast said he had called on several solicitors, and they had declined to attend ; the witnesses also declined to attend. Mr Lewis was recalled, and stated that the clock which prisoner obtained from him to clean had never been returned. Witness had told the prisoner if he returned the clock he (witness) would forgive him. Prisoner said that he could not do so, as he had not got it. J. T. White, a watchmaker in Colombo street, said that the prisoner never had been in partnership with him, nor ever had been authorised by him to collect work. Prisoner had once left a clock to be repaired. Inspector Feast deposed that the prisoner did not live in Christchurch, as he had stated, but at Woodend. Mr Hellish said the Bench would give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt, but would recommend him to be more careful in his dealings in future. He would be discharged. LYTTELTON. Saturday, March 4. (Before W. Donald, Esq, 8.M., and F, D. Gibson, Esq., J.P.) Drunkenness. —James O’Neil and John Olsen, arrested by Constable Moutray, and James Croy, arrested by Constable Macintosh, were each fined 10s, or in default forty-eight hours. Larceny from the Person. —William Allen, on remand from Christchurch, was charged with this offence. Sergeant-Majer O’Grady stated that he had arrested the prisoner on -the 2nd April, 1875, at Lyttelton, on a charge of stealing £l6 from the person of George F. Pym. Accused was discharged on the sth, as the missing money could not be found, and on the same day was arrested by Constable Beck at the instance of Mr R. Cole, of the Lyttelton Hotel, when fifteen sovereigns were found on his person. The prosecutor could not be found, and though every enquiry was made, and the prisoner remanded from day to day till the 4th of June, nothing was heard, and the prisoner was eventually discharged for want of evidence. About seven days ago the Ser-geant-Major received intelligence that Pym was at the Kaikoraa, when he obtained a warrant, and had accused arrested. Accused was remanded for eight days, in order that the prosecutor might be brought from the Kaikoras. Monday, March 6. (Before W. Donald, Esq, 8.M.) Drunkenness. —John Olsen', arrested by constable Moutray, charged with this offence, was fined 20s, or 96 hours’ imprisonment. QUARTERLY LICENSING COURT. Tuesday, March 7th. (Before G. L. Hellish, Esq, B.M. (chairman), H. J. Tanored, B. J. 8. Harman, and G. Leslie Lee, Eaqs, Commissioners.) The Court sat at noon for hearing applications for public house licenses. FRESH APPLICATIONS, Thomas Brooks, corner of St Asaph street west and Lincoln road. Applicant appeared in person. Mr Wynn Williams appeared to oppose, and said that a petition had been presented against the application by householders of the district. The parties were here, and wished to be examined if the Court required. Applicant, in reply to the Court, said that he had been compelled to open a portion of the house as a shop because he could not afford to keep it empty. It was three-quarters of a mile from any other public house. A house was much required in the neighbourhood. Mr Hellish—There is a very long petition to the contrary. The Bench will not grant the license. Edward Taylor, Lincoln road. Mr Wynn Williams appeared to oppose, Mr Hellish said that the Court would not grant the license. William Gawne, Harder street, Newtown. Mr Wynn Williams to oppose. Mr Thomas appeared in support of the application, and put in a petition signed by 300 persons in favour of the application, and said he was prepared to give evidence of the nature of the petition against it. Mr William Wilson deposed that a well regulated house was much wanted in the neighbourhood. He said this believing that such a house would tend to promote sobriety. Knew the applicant ; he was a man of good character. Did not think the inhabitants of the Windmill road or of Colombo road would be affected by the granting of the license. The house was a good house. The witness was here examined as to the parties who had signed the petition in favour. Cross-examined by Mr Williams—Personally I do not object to a public house close to me. Mr Wynn Williams—That disposes of the whole of your evidence. Mr Robson, who had helped to obtain signatures to the petition in favour, deposed that it was signed by residents in the neighbourhood. A dozen

residents in the neighbourhood might object to the license. Mr Thomas said that 121 males had signed the petition, and 51 females. The witness, in cross-examination by Mr Williams, said that a public house and a bar were necessary for the neighbourhood. Mr Wynn Williams —Do you think that a bar is necessary for Messrs W. Wilson, J. 8. Williams, and B, Reece. Witness—lt is require! by the neighbourhood, and the general feeling is in its favour. Mr Booth deposed that a licensed house was required in the neighbourhood. Did not know whether the persons who signed the petition resided in the neighbourhood. Believed the applicant to be a respectable man. By Mr Williams— Did not object to living next door to a public house so long as it was respectable; believed the house would be a benefit to those in the neighbourhood, who could go in and get a drink at the bar. Mr McKinley deposed that the public house would be a convenience and benefit to the neighbourhood. By Mr Williams—l believe that a bar would be a service to the neighbourhood. Mr Nesbitt deposed that a public house would be a benefit, as almost every evening children had coppers given to them to fetch beer from the Crown, which was out of the district. Most of the inhabitants of the district were in favour of the license being granted. Wives as well as their husbands had signed the petition against the license; it was the inhabitants of the out streets who were against the license. By Mr Williams—The bar would be a convenience to persons to get beer for their supper. There were 389 houses in the neighbourhood, and 310 persons had signed ; thought that employees on the railway would board and lodge at the house ; was not aware that there were many wanted lodgings. The house would be an improvement to the neighbourhood, as people could get their food there and sleep there ; was not prepared to say whether the bar or the sleeping places would be the greatest convenience. Mr Aitken deposed that the inhabitants of the neighbourhood were generally in favour of the license being granted. Knew that a man and his wife and servant had signed the petition against the license. An hotel was necessary in the neighbourhood for lodgings. By Mr Williams —Knew that six persons from the West Coast and other places had called on witness to get them lodgings within six months ; did not think the house would pay as a lodging house without a bar. Mr Williams called Mr W. 8. Shierlaw, who deposed that he went round with the petition against the license ; had lived in the neighbourhood for five years ; did not think a licensed house was necessary ; the persona who had signed against the petition lived in the neighbourhood ; there were plenty of boarding houses in the neighbourhood. By Mr Thomas—Kept a boardinghouse himself of 19 rooms, but did not carry it on briskly now; from the bottom, of the Windmill road to the proposed publichouse would be about a quarter of a mile. The establishment of the public house would damage the inhabitants of the Windmill road by leading them to drinking habits. Witness was a Good Templar, and the Good Templars believed it to be their duty to put down the liquor traffic by every proper means. Only two Good Templars went round with the petition, the others who went round were not Good Templars. By Mr Williams—Believed that a public house would demoralise the neighbourhood. Mr Williamson, examined by Mr Williams, stated that there were 389 householders in the district, and out of that number a certain number had signed the petitions against it. Believed the house would be a nuisance to the neighbourhood. Was not a Good Templar, neither was he a drunkard. By Mr Thomas—Had resided in the neighbourhood for three years. Had never been a Good Templar. A committee was appointed to collect signatures against the license. Believed that two-thirds of the inhabitants of Harper street were against the granting of the license. Men and women had signed against the license, but not children. Did not see wives sign in their husband’s presence, but believed that wives had signed as well as their husbands. Twenty-five persons had refused to sign the petition. The house was not a good house. Mr Hitchens, who had lived in the neighbourhood for three years, believed that the hotel would be a nuisance. Declined to say whether he was a Good Templar or not; Good Templary was not a thing to be ashamed of, neither should it be ridiculed. Mr Buxton, who lived on the South town belt, half a mile away, did not think that the house would be a general benefit. By Mr Thomas—Was not a Good Templar. Both the learned counsel having addressed the Court, Mr Hellish said that the Court did not see sufficient reason to alter their previous decision. The license would be refused.

Thomas Whitfield, corner of South town belt and Park road. Mr Fereday appeared to support the application ; Mr Wynn Williams to oppose. Mr Fereday said that a petition had been presented against the license. He should not remark on that, as the Court knew perfectly well how such petitions were got up. He contended that a house was wanted in the neighborhood now, as it would be the nearest house to the Addington railway station. The applicant was well fitted for keeping a licensed house. The Court refused the lioense. Mark Scott, Colegate, South Malvern. Mr Thomas, who appeared iu support of the application, produced plans of the house, and a letter from the Hon J. Hall, as to the desirability of the house, and also another letter as to applicant’s character. Sergeant Burtenshaw said that the house was not yet built, the site was a very out-of-the-way place, and there was not a stick of timber at present on the ground. The mail coach ran to the place, but they had to wait with the horses. There w®s nothing near but the Railway station. Mr Mellish said that of course the Court could not grant the license under the circumstances. Although no doubt a house was desirable in the locality, still the house to be built must be a good one ; the old style of accommodation-house would not do. L. J. Williams, South Malvern, Whitecliffs. Mr Thomas appeared to support the application. Sergeant Burtenshaw said that the house was finished and appeared to be a good little house, well furnished, with a passable stable. There was no other licensed house near it for miles. License granted. Additional stabling to be put up at once. TRANSFERS. From Matthew Oram to Thomas Pyett of the Golden Fleece Hotel. Adjourned for a From James W. Morton, Sumner, to O, Klingenstein. Granted. John Barrett, for the Devonshire Arms, Durham street, Christchurch, from H. Lewis. Adjourned for a week. The Court then adjourned.}