MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1696, 28 July 1879, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, July 28. [Before Q-. Jj, Mellish, Esq., R.M., and GK Xi.

Lee, J.P.] Deuneenness.—Four cases of drunkenness were heard and dealt with in the usual manner.

Breach of Public House Ordinance.— 'William Henry Riddoy was charged with selling liquor in his licensed house, the Q-olden Fleece Hotel, on the 18th inst., contrary to the Public House Ordtnsnce. Mr Thomas appeared for the accused. Charles Bashford, wood turner, residing in Tuam street, gave evidence to the effect that on the date in question ho was in defendant’s house. He heard a noise inside while passing, and he entered. There were about a dozen persons inside, one being a woman who was drunk. The men were drinking. The landlord was not there when the drink was served. When witness went out defendant struck him across the head with a batten. Constable 86 was present, and tried to arrest witness, but twice let him go. This was after hours. Wm. Compton, who was with the last witness on tho occasion in question, gave corroborative evidence. The night porter stated that the two last witnesses came into the hotel between twelve and half-

past twelve o’clock, and witness served them with drinks, the defendant being in tho passage at the time. This concluded th« evidence, and Mr Thomas addressed tho Bench_ to show that the whole matter consisted in the fact of the two principal witnesses for tho prosecution having followed two bma fide lodgers into tho house, and then obtained the liquor with others. He also submitted that the evidence of tho witnesses in question was given in such a way as to make it questionable. The Bench said there were on* or two suspicious circumstances about the case. It was strange, for instance, that the landlord of tho hotel should have had a whip handle so handy for use on the occasion. The charge had been clearly proved as to the sale of l: quor after hours. Fined £5 and costs. John Carpenter, licensee of the Albion Hotel, was charged with permitting gamb ,: ng in his house, and selling liquor to intoxicate 1 persons. Michael Murphy deposed that ho had been in the Albion Hotel between 7 and 8 o’clock in the evening, and remained there until after ten o’clock. They were throwing “ Yankee grab ” for drinks and money. They obtained the dice through tho window. The landlord came in while they were playing. Five or ten pounds wore the highest stakes played for. Witness was drunk when he went into the house. He had about four drinks. Witness lost at play. Ho could not say how much ho lost. He had been drinking about during the day. Ho knew he had between £3O and £4O in the morning. John. Murphy said he went with his brother (the last witness) and another man to tho Albion Hold. Michael Murphy appeared to be sober. They had two or three dr'nks there. They stayed for an hour and a half perhaps, hut not longer. They did not play for more than shilling stakes. Witness did not know that anybody lost much. Ha did not think there was £5 among the company. M-s Mr-phy was outside when the last witness came out. He (Murphy) appeared to be sober. The landlord once stopped them playing when he came in. Said she saw her husbfcnd was gambhng in a room in the Albion Hotel. There were notes on the table. Saw defendant looking at the game. Defendant afterwards came into the passage, and, on witness remonstrating, he stopped the game. Saw defendant serve the men with drinks. A. M, Gaul and George Hyde—The latter said the Murphy’s were playing for money. He saw a £5 note in Michael Murphy’s possession. The Bench remarked, with regard to the sale of intoxicating drinks, that the accused shor’d be given the benefit of the doubt; but as to tho other charge of permitting gambling, they considered tho evidence of Mrs Mu-phy perfectly truthful, and the charge had been fully borne out. The evidence of John Murphy was perfectly unreliable, and there could be no doubt that he took advantage of his brother fae'ng under the influence of drink to swindle him out of his money. If it had been shown that tho landlord was aware of tho swindling ho would be dealt much more severely with. As it was, the Bench would impose a fine of £lO and costs. The Case cf BabnAkd.— William Barnard was brought up and remanded to Keiapoi, to appear there on the 4th proximo. Bbeach of Hailway By-Law.—Ernest Schofield was fined 10s for getting into a train whilst in motion.