MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2344, 7 October 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

OHRIBTOHUROH. Fbidat, Ootobbb 7. [Before G. L. Mellish, R.M., and B. Wostenra, J.P ] Drunkenness.—Robert Gilkes was fined 5s or twenty-four hours'imprisonment; Mary Ann White was fined 10s or forty-eight hours' imprisonment.

1 Gambling in a Licbnbhd House.—Robt. Belgrave, licensee of the Crown Hotel, was charged with this offence, contrary to the provisions of the Publichouse Ordinance. Thomas Schultz deposed that on September 30th he was one of a party of lour playing euchre. The landlord was thero. The cards wore obtained from the barmaid. There were seven or eight games played for drinks. At the end of those a dispute occurred, one of the party refusing to pay when he lost, and much bad language was used. Cross-examined—The landlord knew of the gambling. He served witness with two oigars during the play. There never was any money on the table. He thought the landlord and barman must have known that the party were playing for drinks. Archibald McKinlay gave similar evidence. He said thero were three or four games played, and in the row that occurred Schultz raised a knife to witness. > rose examined—The barman served the drinks. The landlord never was in the room. He never served Sohulta with cigars. John Rainey, another of the party, stated that he could swear that the landlord or barman did not know they were playing for drinks. The first round was paid for by witness before any game was played, and afterwards, though they played sixpence a corner, the money was collected by one person and paid to the barman. They had three or four games for drinks, and four or five others for money—the same stakes. James Doherty, the remaining man of the party, corroborated previous witness in every respeot. The defence was that neither the landlord nor the barman knew that gambling for money or drinks was going on. Mr Thomas called Wallace, the barman, who swore that, although he saw the party playing euohre for about three-quarters of an hour, he had no idea that there were any stakes involved. The landlord was never in the bar or room while the playing was going on. Robert Belgrave deposed that he had always peremptorily instructed his servants not to allow gambling in the house. He never saw the party or knew that they were playing cords. Mr Thomas addressed the Bench, contending that no " permission" of the landlord had been showr. There had not been any previous complaints of the conduct of the house. The Bench said there had unquestionably been gambling going on, though perhaps it was not of a serious nature ; they thought the barman should have ascertained whether the parties were playing for money. It did not seem, however, a case for penalty, and the Bench being aware that the house had been well oonducted, would simply cause a conviction to be recorded, but without fine.