RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, BLENHEIM.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume II, Issue 101, 9 March 1880, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, BLENHEIM.

Monday, March Sth. (Before H. Molntire, Esq., R.M.] POLICE V. CLARK, William Clark, landlord of the Club Hotel, was charged on the information of Police Sergeant Cullen with having his open during prohibited hours, namely from 11 p.m., on the 13th January, to 12-30 a.m. on the following morning, contrary to the 6th section of the Marlborough Publicans’ House Management Act, 1574. Mr Sinclair appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Mr Sinclair raised a preliminary objection to the information. The clause under which the charge was laid contained an exemption or proviso, which must be negatived in the information. He quoted Johnson Justice to that effect, but did not press the matter and the case proceeded. Michael Neal deposed : I know Mr Clark ; lie keeps the Club Hotel. I live in Redwood Street, about a mile from thei e. I was not a lodger in the house. I remember being there one evening in January, I don’t remember the date. I was in the billiard room up to about h past 12 o’clock. Shepherd, the billiard marker, was there, Messrs Fulton, Turner, and two or three from the Telegraph Department. We were in the billiard-room playing pool. I did not see any liquor supplied after hours. When I went away I loft them playing. There were lights only in the billiardroom.

By Mr Sinclair : 1 did not have any liquor after 11 o’clock that night, nor did I see anybody else got any. The bar was not open after hours. The door of the billardroom opens into the hall. I went out by the side door leading into the street. 'Flic door was locked. I unlocked it and let myself out.

Alexander Fulton gave similar evidence. Witness remained in the billiard-room play ing “ pool ” after Neal left. Witness left by the door facing Ewart’s Hall. Witness cannot say at what time he left; it was after o’clock.

Inspector Smith said he presumed defend ant would admit that his license only extended to 11 o’clock. ilr Sinclair said his client had no notice to produce a license. The police had had ample time to have had the license produced, but he withdrew the objection. The Inspector proposed to put in the Marlborough Publicans’ House Management Act, but Mr Sinclair objected to its being put int as the imprint to it was incorrect, nor did it appear that the Governor had assented to it. He quoted the Official Documents Evidence Act in support of his contention that the evidence was inadmissable.

'l'he Court over-ruled the objection as. to the iiqprint, but said it was a nice point which might be well worth an appeal. Mr Sinclair then urged his other objection, that there was no evidence of the Governor or Superintendent having assented to this ordinance. If the Governor or Superintendent had never assented to it, it was not law. He quoted from the Constitution Act in support of his contention. The R.M. said he would reserve judgment on the point, and let the case proceed. The Inspector submitted that Mr Clarke was liable for having the house open after hours. The billiard-room was part of the house, and he was liable for having it open. The R.M. observed that the clause under which the information was laid, atall events the first part of it, referred to the sale of liquors. There was no evidence that liquor had been sold ; indeed, what evidence had been called negatived it. Mr Sinclair said the police seemed to entertain the old feudal idea of a “ curfew bell,” after the ringing of which all lights were to be put out, and all doors closed, which was a mistaken view of the law. The house could be kept open after hours to lodgers and travellers and on special occasions. The house was not open for sale of liquors after 11 o’clock on the night in

question, and the intention of the clause was to prevent the sale of liquar during the prohibited hours. Mr Sinclair submitted that the case s hould be dismissed. The Inspector said what he wished to establish was that the billiard-room could not be kept open all night. The P.M. said the case was a very important one, and he should reserve hisjudg meat until next Monday. stray houses. John Humble. storekeeper, Blenheim, was charged with permitting two horses to he tethered and let at large in Redwood Street, without having any person to look after them. A penalty of os and 7s costs was imposed for each horse. Philip Lawrence was charged with allowing a horse to stray iu High Street. Defendant pleaded guilty, saying he hoped the Court would deal leniently with the case, as he should deduct the fine from the wages of the shop hoy, whose fault it was that the animal got loose. The R.M. said he must impose the same penalty as in the former case, 5s and 7s costs. CIVIL CASES. McAartney v. Wilson. —Claim for £ll, cash lent. Adjourned for a week. A. W. Litchfield v. J. Bradcock. —A judgment summons for £5 13s 7d, for goods sold and delivered. In this case an order was made for payment by instalments of £1 per week, or in default, one months’imprisonment. There were a few more cases on the list, which were either settled out of Court or adjourned.