RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Grey River Argus, Volume VI, Issue 426, 6 October 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Saturday, October 3. (Before W. H. Revell, Esq., R..M.) Obstructing the Police. — O. Hammond Avas charged with obstructing Constable Mueller in the execution of his; duty. The constable stated that he went to tho shop occupied by Samuel Wilson to serve a summons. The door was shut, but not locked. He entered, and saw defendant, and enquired for Wilson. Defendant said he was not in. He believed Wilson was in, and asked if defendant was in charge of the place, when he replied, "No; you can take charge of it if you like." He was about to enter a back room, where he thought Wilson was, when defendant pnt his hands on him, and said he could not allow him tq go in there. He did not force his way in, b,ut left the summons on the counter. This was the case, Mr Perkins, for the defence, urged that the charge had not been ijorne out by the evidence. The defendant had, in law, a perfect right to prevent the constable from entering a private room and searching the premises without a search- warrant. The constable was a trespasser on the premises, when he attempted to enter a. private room for the purpose of serving a summons, utter he had been to.ld by defendant, as he was, that the premises belonged to him. There was no attempt made to evade service of the summons, and if this sort of thing were to be allowed there was, an end of all liberty, for a constable pould then enter any private premises without a warrant. The Magistrate took a different view of the case. The constable was instructed to, serve a summons on a certain person, and for that purpose he entered the shop, the door of which was not locked. When he was told that Wilson was not in, he was, perfectly justified in looking into the room for the purpose of effecting service of the summons. The evidence went to show that defendant denied having any charge of the premises. The constable was not forcing his way into a private room, but simply looking in to execute a summons, and defendant had no right to interfere with him. Fined £1 and costs. Breach op the Licensing Ordinance. — William Moore was charged with keeping and exposing for sale certain spirituous liquors in his premises, near the Grey coal mine, on the 29th ult. The defendaut admitted the charge, but said he had no intention to evade the law. Before he opened his premises, he wrote down to Mr Kilgour to send him up a printed notice to apply for a license, but he did not send it. He then posted a written notice of his intention to apply for a license, thinking he had to do this for fourteen days. When the constable arrived and told him this was no good, he came to town and procured a license on the following day. Mr Kilgour said he received an order from the defendant for a supply of goods and to take out a license for him. He sent up the goods, but neglected to take out the license. He was entirely to blame for having overlooked the matter. The Magistrate said there did not appear to be any intention in this case to evade the law, and he would therefore inflict the nominal penalty of .£3 and costs. Breach of the Peace. — Patrick Colwell and Robert Gibbs were charged with having committed a breach of the peace by fighting on the South Spit, near Greymoutli, on the 29th ult. The defendants admitted the charge, and said they had a few words on the street in the morning, and they thought it better to go out of town to settle it. The Magistrate said the defendants in this case were only brought up 'on a charge of a breach of the peace, but if he had thought there was anything in this affair of the nature of a prize-fight, with money staked on it, they would have been liable, to be prosecuted for it, and ran the risk of being sentenced to two years' imprisonment, as well as all those who were present adding and abetting. These fights must not take place, and they wqulcl not be allowed. Fined; 10s. each and costs.