MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 894, 7 May 1877, Page 3

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, May 7. [Before Gr. L. Mellish, and Gr. L

Leo, Esq., J.P.] Drunkenness —Patrick Sullivan, drunk and disorderly, fined 10s; A. Arkely, ditto, fined 10s, and Is cabhirc ; George Cresswcll, ditto, fined 10s ; John Turner, ditto, fined ss; Charles Evans, ditto, and illegally on the premises of Duncan Munro, fined 60s and Is 6d cabhirc: James Keig, ditto, fined ss; James Alexander, ditto, fined 20s; James Allen, ditto, and also using insulting and abusive language to the railway porters on the Christchurch platform on the previous day, fined 20s; Mary Ann Kirkwood was summoned for being drunk and disorderly, but did not appear. Inspector Buckley stated that the police could not find her. Case withdrawn.

Disobeying an Order of the Court. — Neil McPliee was brought up on warrant, charged with disobeying an order of the Court for payment of £1 per week for the supof his wife and family. The complainant stated that she had received no money since the 22nd of March last. Defendant stated that his wife had been paid £l2 through Mr George Harper. If Ids children were put into the Industrial School, he would have no objection to paying the money, because he would know they would be well taken care of. Complainant said that she was perfectly able to take care of her children. Defendant said he would give his wife another chance if she would clear out of town and go and live in the country. His Worship said he would now have to pay arrears (£5) forthwith, or, in default, go to prison for a month. Defendant asked to be allowed two or three weeks to pay arrears. His Worship declined to grant the

request. ! Breach of Licensing Act— The following hotel keepers were summoned for having move than one bar on their premises without the consent of the Licensing Court and with- . out paying the fees for the same: —John Carle, Thomas Pyctt, Wm. Savage, Wm. Bertie, Roger Kelt, John Barrett, Fredk. King, Robert Geddis, Charles Green, John Fox, Wm. Kirkwood, John Johnston, John Carpenter, Rowland P. Hill, Henry Garland, John Collier, H. Allen, AY. T, Baugh and G, Plimmer. The case against John Barrett was ; first called on. Mr Joynt, instructed by Mr Thomas, appeared for the defendant. At Mr Joynt’s request, the evidence was taken down, the learned counsel stating that there might possiby be an appeal. Inspector Buckley, being sworn, deposed that on the 25th of last month he visited the house owned by the defendant, situate at the corner of Durham and Peterborough streets. On entering a door from Durham street and going along a passage, just at the back of the bar in another passage there is a doorway cut in two leading into the bar. The lower portion is of wood, on top of which there is a sort of shelf. The top portion is like a window. Exactly opposite that there is a similar door entering into the billiard room. On entering another door from Peterborough street, you come into a sort of lobby. There is a square hole, with a square pane entering into the bar. It was shut when I saw it, hut is capable of being opened. By Mr Joynt—l did not at the time of my visit see any drink supplied through any of these apertures. Assuming tbe openings were to be used, persons outside could lie supplied with liquor by the person in the bar. Inspector Buckley said (his was all the evidence. Mr Juvnt called Mr Armson, architect, who deposed that lie acted as architect in the build ing of Barrett’s Family Hotel. [Plans produced and explained by witness.] There is a cjoorway leading into the billiard room, opposite to the other door leading from the passage to the bar. Mr Joynt said this was all the evidence he had to submit. He might say

that he could find no legal defination for the word “bar.” He had searched the best dictionaries, and the general definition was that a bar was a place in which a landlord or his servant sat and dispensed his liquors or refreshments to bis customers. Therefore these openings into the bar for convenience sake must be taken to lie part and parcel of tlu' one bar. ile submit ted that it was not only repugnant to the definition of the word bar but to common sense itself, to say that every opening into this bar was a separate bar. He would ask the Bench to give their interpretation of the term “bar,” in order that the question might be settled. He took it that this distinction was made hero for the purposes of revenue, and to assist in the carrying out of the immigration and public works scheme. [Laughter.] There was no such distinction in England as was attempted to be made here, and therefore he submitted that these openings or apertures eoidd not be taken to be separate bars, but part and parcel of one. His Worship said that the definition of the word “bar,” for the purposes of this ease, must be taken to be the definition as given in the Act of 1873, which says that the word “bar” shall be deemed to include any room, passage, or lobby in a licensed house, in which the public were supplied with liquors. Mr Joynt submitted that a passage could not be taken to be a bar, but that a bar must be taken to be a distinct part of the house in which liquors were supplied. Under his Worship’s ruling, a bar opening into two streets must be taken to be two bars. It was contrary to common sense to put such a construction on the term. His Worship said they could not take suppositious cases into consideration, but decide each ease on its merits. In the present case a fine would be imposed. Mr Joynt asked whether these pigeon holes were considered to be bars. In this case, there was no evidence to show that the pigeon hole had been used. His Worship said it would save expense, perhaps, to decide that pigeon holes were bars, so that a test case might be submitted for appeal. Mr Joynt said the hotelkeepers of Christchurch were very anxious to have the whole questioned settled. His Worship imposed a fine of £5 for each extra bar as shown on the plan produced. On the application of Mr Joynt, his Worship consented to state a case for appeal. Thomas Pyett was charged with having a bar in the billiard room of the Golden Fleece without the consent of the Licensing Court or paying the fees for same. Mr Thomas said his client admitted the fact, but be was not aware that it was necessary to obtain consent and pay fees for the bar in the billiard-room. His predecessor had never paid any for the same bar, and Mr Pyett did not think he had to do so. His Worship imposed a fine of £5. All the other cases were adjourned pending Ihe decision of the Siqn’crac Court in Barrett’s case. Selling Drink without a License. —A case against Mary Ann Gilman, owner of a house of ill-fame on the Ferry road, for selling two bottles of beer without a license, was dismissed. Cattle at Large. — W. Atkinson, two horses at large, fined 10s. Unregistered Dogs.— Fines of 20s each were imposed in the following cases : —George Waldock Ell, Hugh Casscn, James Miller, and Edwin Peter Martin. Threatening to Shoot. — W. Henley was charged with threatening to shoot Mary McCabe, at Shand’s track. Mr Loughnan for complainant, Mr Thomas for defendant. Complainant deposed that she was on Shand’s Track when the defendant came up and threatened to shoot her. He fired two shots over her head, and then walked away. She was very much frightened. She gave him no provocation, and had had no quarrel with with him. She was not on speaking terms with defendant’s brother. A lad who was with Mrs McCabe at the time corroborated evidence as to the defendant threatening to shoot Mrs McCabe, and then firing two shots in the air. Mrs McCabe did not say a word to the defendant. The defendant deposed that on the day in question he discharged the gun, but he did not see Mrs McCabe then, nor did he speak a word to her. He afterwards saw Mrs McCabe standing about sixty yards from him on the road. Counsel on botli sides having addressed the Court, his Worship said it was exceedingly unsatisfactory in a case of this kind that the evidence should be somewhat contradictory. He did not see, however, how they could get over the evidence of Mrs McCabe, or think she could commit such a diabolical sin as to perjure herself and get a boy to perjure himself as well. Mr Thomas said his client felt so strongly on the subject, that he would ask his Worship to adjourn the case in order that further evidence might be brought forward. His client had no ill-will against Mrs McCabe whatever. His Worship said he thought the case would be satisfied by ordering the defendant to pay the costs, 23s fid. City By-Law. John Foster, junr., charged with neglecting to keep a light burning on a heap of shingle placed on the north town belt, was fined 10s, and 9s costs. Violent Conduct. —Joseph Smith was charged with being drunk and conducting himself violently on the Southbridge Railway, to the annoyance of Margaret Kaufman. Mr Thomas appeared for accused. The evidence did not disclose anything more than that the defendant referred offensively to Miss Kaufman in words, and looked at her, as she considered, impudently. There was no violence, as imputed in the information. Miss Kaufman wished it to be understood that the police, not she, had laid the information. She had such a dislike to coming to Court , that she had hoped the guard would take no notice of Mr Smith’s conduct. Defendant stated that; he had only spoken to complainant in a friendly way. lie had said nothing for the purpose of offending her. [Left sitting.]