MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 857, 23 March 1877, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH.

Friday, March 23. (Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.) Drunk and Disorderly.— Margaret Bowen, charged with drunkenness, and against whom the case had been remanded to allow of her re-joining the Good Templars, produced a satisfactory document, and was discharged. Larceny. —John McCann alias Montgomery, charged on remand with this offence, was remanded to Ashburton on the application of the police, to be brought up on the 27t instant. Breach of Public House Ordinance Jacob S. Wagner was charged on six information", under the above Ordinance—Four with keeping the outer doors of his licensed house, the Clarendon Hotel open, leading to the bar and tap, and two with selling liquors in the bar of the house during prohibited hours. Mr Thomas appeared for defendant. Constable Hamill called, gave evidence of having seen two side doors leading into Worcester street open at twenty-five minutes past eleven o’clock on the night of Sunday, 11th instant. He went in along a passage, and found the bar lighted up. There were two persons in the bar at the time, with empty glasses before them. Did not see either of these drinking. Knew that one was not a lodger, but the other said he was. A witness, called, stated that he went into the hotel that night to inquire for a gentleman who had arrived the previous night by the Hokitika coach. Asked Mr Wagner if this gentleman was in bed, and he (Mr. Wagner) went to look for him, and during his absence the constable came in. Witness had had no drink in the house, nor had he seen any served while there. Was only in the place for a few moments before the constable came in. Inspector Buckley called the lodger, who stated that he had resided at the hotel for the last eighteen months. Jje was in the bar, talking to Mr Wagner’s eldest son, when a gentleman came in and made some inquiries from Mr Wagner. The latter went out, and immediately afterwards a constable came in. Witness bad had a drink in the bar some time before the constable came in and after be went opt, but did pot have any while the last witness was there. Mr Wagner called by Mr Thomas, stated that when the first witness came in, there were besides himself, bis son, and a lodger in the bar, he (the Witness) enquired for a gentleman who had arrived the previous evening from Hokitika. Witness went to see whether he was in bed, but before doing so unlocked the passage door and went on to the lawn to bring in

some chairs that had been left there by lodgers, When he returned into the passage his son came and told him that a policeman wanted to see him. Went into the bar, and showed that constable by the slate that one of the gentlemen present was a lodger. Had ordy served his boarder with a drink, and did not think he was doing wrong in supply ing that gentleman. Mr Thomas held that under the Act his client could supply a drink to a lodger in the bar at any time, as the word “ therein ” clearly meant “ within” the bar. His Worship held not; the proviso to section 24 read as follows —” Provided also that nothing herein contained shall be interpreted to authorise the opening of any outer or street door leading to the bar or tap on the days and within the hours above - mentioned or suplying liquors therein.” He could not for one moment agree with Mr Thomas’ interpretation of the section as far as the bar was concerned. Inspector Buckley said, that had the lodger been served with a drink in one of the rooms the present charge would not have been brought Mr Thomas, referring to the information for keeping the outer door open, said than on the previous Sunday a lady and two gentlemen staying at the hotel were standing at one of the private doors, when a constable came up and insultingly told them they must either come in or go out. He would like to ask the witness whether he was the constable who did this. Inspector Buckley said it was unfair to ask any witness such a question while he was upon his oath. If there was any complaint to be made against a constable, Mr Wagner knew there was an easy way to make it. His Worship agreed with the inspector, and said that if a complaint of such a nature were made to the commis sioner that officer would no doubt have the men paraded. These outer doors must, however, be kept closed. Mr Thomas asked that his Worship would inflict a penalty of £lO to enable him to try the case in the Supreme Court, as if his Worship’s ruling were correct, and his client had to keep his doors locked, he might be fined £5 every Sunday. His Worship said he bad not mentioned the word locked; a spring might easily be placed on those doors which would keep them closed. It had been shown that two doors were open, and this the law did not permit, Mr Thomas said his client would take care that this did not occur in future, as strong springs would at once be placed on each door. A point of this kind had not been raised before, and he would ask his Worship to inflict a nominal penalty. His Worship told Mr Wagner he must understand he could not supply liquor even to any of his lodgers in the bar on either Sundays or Good Friday. Under all the circumstances defendant would be fined Is and costs. The information of supplying liquor to other than a lodger would be dismissed. The evidence was similar in the other cases. On the 13th inst the outer door was open, and on the 16th a lodger bad been supplied with drink in the bar. Mr Thomas told his Worship that his client and the other publicans claimed the right of keeping all the side doors open even daring the whole night if required for the convenience of their customers, His Worship said that if this was the opinion held he would certainly inflict a fine. Mr Thomas asked that the penalty might be made above £5, as the association wished to try the question in the Supreme Court. After some further remarks, Mr Thomas said he would take great care that a circular should be sent to each member of the Licensed Victuallers Association, informing them that they must have sufficiently strong" springs on their doors which will keep them closed. His Worship said he felt that would be a hard case and very inconvenient to lodgers if all the private doors had to be locked during Sundays and after eleven o’clock, but publicans must understand that no outside door whatever must be kept open, each must be closed, but not necessarily locked. Under the promise given by counsel he (his Worship) would inflict a similar penalty as in the other case, viz, Is, Mr Thomas repeated his previous promise, and having paid the two shillings to the clerk of the Bench the parties left.