MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 871, 10 April 1877, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Tuesday, April 10. [Before G. L. Lee, Esq., and Colonel Packc, J.P.’s] and Disorderly - . —Three inebriates, who appeared for the first time, were each fined ss. Wife Desertion. —A case of this nature against John Riley, who had been arrested at the Waimate, was adjourned until Wednesday. LYTTELTON. Tuesday, April 10. (Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M.) Breach of Purltc-house Ordinance.— Thomas Bailey, of the Canterbury Hotel, was accused of a breach of this Ordinance. There were two informations against him, one for keeping his house open during prohibited hours on Sunday, March 25th, which was taken first. Mr H. X. Xalder appeared for the defence. Constable Moutray gave evidence that on the day in question he saw several well known residents in Lyttelton enter a side door of the Canterbury, and followed them in and rapped at a door leading into the bar parlor, but could not get in. Two witnesses deposed to having entered the Canterbury on the day in question, and had a pint of beer each at about noon. They had no difficulty in getting into the house. One of the witnesses said that Mr Bailey shouted the drinks in question. After hearing other evidence, from which it appeared that one of the persons to whom liquor was supplied had a message from Kumara for Mr Bailey, Mr H. X. Holder addressed the Bench, stating that Mr Bailey admitted serving the drinks in question, but that the witness was right in stating that one of the men had a message to him from the Kumara. The Bench, after commenting severely on the conduct of some of the witnesses, whose equivocations were most disgraceful, inflicted a fine of £5. Obstructing the Police in the Execution of their Duty.— Mr Bailey was farther charged with this offence. Several witnesses were called, whose evidence went to prove that, on the Sunday in question, Mr Bailey refused to open the door when asked bv the police. As it appeared, however, that Mr Bailey had stated at the time that he could not open the door, as the key was in the barman’s possession, the police did not press the charge, and the case was withdrawn.