MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 821, 8 February 1877, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, Febuary 8. (Before G. L. Mellish, Esq, R.M., and R. J. S. Harman, and G. L. Lee, Esqs, J.P.s.) Breach of Licensing Act.— Edward V'. Hiorns, licensee of the Central Hotel, appeared to answer to thcjinformation of permitting more than one bar to his licensed house without having the consent of the Licensing Court, and paying the fee for such additional bar. Mr Thomas appeared for Mr Hiorns, and said the facts of the case were not denied. It was his intention to show his client’s right to have these bars open. Inspector Buckley stated that he visited defendant’s house on the 31st January last, and found a bar leading into Gloucester street through folding doors. There was another bar leading from the same street, at the end of the passage, and which though divided by a counter could be served by a man in the public bar. The bar in Gloucester street had lately been opened. In reply to Mr Thomas, Inspector Buckley said there was not a public house in Christchurch but had more than one bar. There were many people who preferred not going into a public bar, and to those persons this might be a convenience. In reply to the Bench, Mr Buckley said the passage leading to one of the bars from the house, was the whole length of the section. Mr Thomas handed in a plan showing the position of the bars. Mr Thomas said he had no evidence to offer. In the 10th section of the Act of 1873, no publican was entitled to have more than one public bar for the sale of spirituous liquors, while the Act of 1874, in clauses 329 and 330, said that notwithstanding anything in the previous Act, a publican could have more than one bar in his house for the sale of spirituous liquors. His Worship said that the real question was whether the bar in the information was a public bar, or, if spirituous liquors were sold there ; if so, defendant was entitled to pay for it under the Act of 1874. Mr Thomas contended that, if the interpretation of the word “ bar” was the same now as under the 1874 Act, then his client could not be asked to pay for it. If the Court held that an extra penalty would have to be imposed on any person who kept a separate bar, for the convenience of his respectable customers, then many of the hotel-keepers in Christchurch would be obliged to pay £l5O a year. His Worship—And so he should if it pays him, to have three bare open. Mr Thomas

said that if that was the in £ er ' pretation of the Bench, then he had nothing to say in the matter. He would like to have an expression of opinion of the Bench, whether a bar existing at the end of a passage, opening into three or four different rooms, though only one counter, would compel an additional fee being paid for each opening. His Worship said that as the whole of the Licensing Commissioners were not present he would decline to answer it, but the question could he again asked at the next quarterly sitting of the Licensing Court. Mr Thomas said that as the bar had been opened by his client under the belief that he was not contravening the law, he would ask that no fine he imposed. His Worship said the Bench would only inflict a nominal penalty, but held that defendand had under the Act opened two bars, and had only paid the license fee for one. Fined one shilling. Transfer of License. A temporary transfer of the license of the Commercial Hotel was granted from W. F. Warner to W. Kadcliffe. LYTTELTON. Thursday, February 8, (Before W. Donald, Esq, R.M, and J. T Rouse, Esq, J.P.) Drunkenness.— James Jones, arrested by Constable Johnston, was fined 10s, or in default 48 hours. Obtaining Money on Balse Pretences.—Phillip Cater Newington, on remand from yesterday, was charged with this offence. Mr Izard appeared for accused. Mr Izard having addressed the Bench, the accused, who reserved his defence, was committed for trial. Phillip Cater Newington was further accused of a similar offence by Hugh Hopper, another passenger per the Crusader, from London to Lyttelton. Mr Izard appeared for defence. Hugh Hopper, sworn, said—l knew accused a week or two after leaving Londom in the Crusader. Prisoner asked me for money. I cannot say the exact sum, but I have it chalked up in the cabin. (Laughter.) He told me when I lent him the money that he would repay it on arrival at Lyttelton, as he had watches and jewels in possession of the captain, and boxes down in the main hold containing circular notes or letters of credit to the value of some thousands of pounds, out of which he would pay any small sum he might borrow from me. The money would be paid at the Union Bank of Australia, Christchurch, Accused also said he was travelling under an assumed name, as he was really Lord Maidstone, eldest son and heir of the Earl of Winchelsea. He told me this before I lent him the money He also said he had six saddles, and a uniform of the 18th Hussar regiment, of which he was captain. I saw a box belonging to accused opened; it contained a velvet coat, a bridle, and a lot of rubbish, empty collar and glove boxes. About a month before we arrived I stopped giving accused money. I had then given him £lO. On January 16th I lent him £1 (this was after we reached Christchurch) on his representation that he had not yet got his boxes out of the hold. I asked the prisoner for his 10 U; he refused to give it to me. [Left sitting.]