POLICE COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2153, 19 January 1881, Page 3

POLICE COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH, Wednesday, Januauy 19, (Before J. Inglia and J. Hewlings, Esqs., J.P’s.] Dettuk BNNBB3. —For a first offence a man was fined sb, SBimiNO Bbbb without a Licence.— Qeo. Brown and Peter Carroll were charged, ob the information of Detective Neill, with having sold without licence, on the 13th and 14th instants, three bottles of beer. Defendants are the proprietors of a boarding-house in Tuam street, near the Wellington Hotel. There were separate oases against the defendants. Mr Scott appeared for defendants. Jas. Morgan, laborer, deposed to seeing a man named O’Connor at the boarding house at about 11.30 on the night of the 14tb. He asked for some beer. Brown said he did not sell boor, but could get some. O’Connor gave Brown 2s, and the latter went outside, retiring shortly afterwards with a bottle of beer, which was emptied into a jug. W. O’Connor spoke to him, asking for and getting the beer. It took Brown five or ten minutes to get the beer. Cross-examined— Witness thought the beer came from Faoh’s hotel. Know that beer was often brought frsm that place for the boarders. Reexamined —Did not think it was usual to bring beer from Fuoh’s at midnight. W. G. Walker, clerk to the Licensing Court, stated that defendant was not licensed to sell alcoholic liquors. W. O’Connor, re-called, would not swear to the time of the transaction. It might have been before eleven o’clock. There was an alarm of fire that night. The boll rang afterwards, but could not say how long afterwards. Defendant, sworn, said he bought the beer at Fuoh’s. The time was before eleven o’clock. He know it was before eleven, because Fuoh’s shut at that time. Ho went in by the back door, but the front door was open. Crossexamined—The beer was colonial bottled beer, in two bottles. Never bought beer from the brewers except at Christmas time, from Manning ; that was given away to boarders. Could nob say who served him with the beer. It was not got from an outhouse belonging to the boarding house. Mr Soott addressed the Bench, saying that he could not understand why the cose was brought ; there was no evidence of anything illegal having been done. The case against Carroll was then taken. Lily Wright deposed, that being a lodger in the house on the 13th inst., she asked Carrol for a bottle of beer, giving him a shilling. He took the money, and in sight of witness went into an outhouse and took out a bottle, which he handed to her. The contents were drank by her and some friends. A similar transaction took place an hour or so afterwards. Cross-examined: Had been lodging a month in the house. She left because the proprietors were uncivil. The cook was present at the time. Carroll often sold beer. Sometimes at 2s 6d and 4s and 5s per bottle. She left the house last Monday of her own accord. She was robbed on the Sunday night, and left next day. Witness is a married woman; her name is Thompson. Lily Wright was her maiden same. Albert Griffith, cook’s mate at the house, deposed that ho recollected the 13th. Did not on that day see the transaction referred to by last witness as having taken place near the kitchen. Had same conversation with Carroll after ho had received the subpama. Carroll told him ho need nob say any more in the ease than he could help, and witnessed promised him he would be cautious. Carroll did not instruct him to say that he had not soon any beer sold to Lily Wright on the 14th. The witness fenced with a considerable number of questions, and the Bench cau. tioned him that he was damaging Carroll’s ease by his prevarication. He finally said ho had never seen Carroll give Lily Wright beer. Cress-examined—There was some beer got in at Christmas. It was given to the boarders. He saw a man named Stevens go to and from Fuoh’s on the morning of the 14th. Stevens was a messenger and man of all work at the boarding house. Robert Bouben, cook at the boarding house, deposed to hearing a conversation between Carroll and Lily Wright on the morning of the 14th. She asked Carroll to shout; Carroll said, 41 Yes, if she left the house. She said, “ All right,” and he then gave her Is, and she went ■nd got a bottle of beer. Witness did not know where she got it. Knew the outhouse before mentioned. Was often in there, but could not name anything in it. There might be a box in it, but could not say whether there was or not. Excepting what he had said, he knew nothing about what was £oing on in the house, except what immediately concerned him. Cross - examined Saw Wright with a bottle of beer shortly after the conversation he had before deposed to. He did not know where she got it. This witness repeated several times in the course of his examination that he took bo notice of what was going on in the house. He had plenty of his own affairs to attend to, &e. Edward Stevens, alias .Dutchy, called by the defence, said ho was employed jobbing at the house. Remembered last Thursday or Friday, he could not exactly say which, as when he wua hard at work ho had no time to pay attention to the days. He was working near the kitchen about nine or ton o’clock, he could not say which, for he was working hard at the time. His master, Carroll, gave him a shilling to get him a bottle of beer. Witness wont to Fuchs’, got it, and gave it to hiii master. Mr Scott—“Do you know of an outhouse at the back of the boarding house in which beer is kept ?” Witness—“ Not to my knowledge.” my kind, beloved, learned friend!” Crossexamined—The witness knew nothing about tho contents of the out house. Peter Carroll the defendant, repeated the account given by Reuben ns to the bottle of beer, excepting that it wos Stevens who brought the beer, which either Stevens or himself gave her. He had been warned by Sergeant Wilson when Wright lived at hie place that ho was harboring bad characters ; and it was for that reason ho had told her to leave the house. Ho had told her before to leave. If she contradiotod this statement she swore to a de-

liberate lie. Ori»3-eximined —There was a boa; in the out-house, but he did not keep beer in it. Ho did not know that Wright was a bad character till told by the police. Mr Scott oaid that this case was more frivolous than the preceding one. The only evidence was that of a woman of bad character. It wan contradicted by all the rest, and the reason of the charge being made was fully exposed by the statement of Carrol. He had not the slightest doubt that both cases would bo dismissed. After a short consultation, both oases were dismissed.