RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume II, Issue 117, 4 May 1880, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

(Before John Allen, Esq., R.M., W. K. Dive, Esq., and Alfred Greenfield, Esq., J.P.’s.) SI VCGHTER-HOUSE LICENSES. An application from Charles Bickering, fora slaughter-house license on section 212 was refused, on the ground that tin* site ap plied for is within the boundaries the town of Havelock. (Before John Allen, Esq., R.M.) POLICE V. WARNER. Mr McNab appeared for defendant, and Alfred Peters was sworn as interpreter of the Norwegian language. The defendant was charged with being drunk at Havelock on the 21st of April last. Sergeant Hogan deposed that at about 5 p.in. on the2lst April, defendant was drunk in this Court, and was sent to the lock-up. Cross-examined by Mr M‘Xab--I removed liiin because he was drunk. I swear he was drunk. I don’t know how many drinks the man had had. Mr Dive was sitting on the Bench at the time. Defendant was here at his own request. I don’t know what his position is here. By the Bench—The defendant was sum-

monel for being drank. Mr Dive did not in charge, f took him in charge ■ jority ay a constable. police Constable Glachcn deposed-I was in the Court-house at 5 p.m on the ..Ist Anril Defendant was then present, and was drunk. Sergeant Hogan ordered him to be locked no. . . (dross-examined —I do not understand the Norwegian language. I know the man was drunk ; 1 do not think he was incapable ot T.leadinV T have nothing to do with what other witnesses may say He was not in Court ten minutes before he was locked up. I saw him come into the Court. Ido not i ’- m>every maul seek drunk. Jhe Seri°c,x ))Qt co , )S ult with me. I was told geant a. _ n p w ] ien he came into Court. J to lock hin, , c H 0 j cannot say whether should have do.. ' ' . ( \],j m u] , 0 n niy own reI should have lock^ sponsibility. I—l 1 —I was sitting \Y . K. Dive, f1.1’., '’st, and was on the Bench at 5 p.m., April ’ ] Jo f ore requested to hear a case that day, sttlie date of the summons. I was so requ* ed hy the master of the Dauntless. The defendant I believe to he a sailor belonging to that vessel. r l here were two cases forheai jug. Defendant did not plead to the charge. He appeared in a stupid state ; I should say it was caused hy drink, 1 here was an oflort made an hour afterwards to hear the case that night. .Mr M‘Nab objected. Cross-examined —I did not order defendant to be removed. [ might have done so bad he remained a little longer. I should have thought he was in a position to plead to the charge. By the Bench —He was asked to plead, and gave no intelligible answer at all. For the defence' Mr M 'Nab said he was prepared to prove that the defendant was not drunk. When lie was asked to plead lie answered in the Norwegian language. He was then taken out of Court by the polibc. The Sergeant was guilty of contempt of Court, lie having no right without an order from the Court to ait as he did. The charge was to be tried, and the presiding J. F. considered tho accused was aide to plead to it. \Y. H. Dive, recalled--Had defendant not pleaded, I should probably have ordered him to be locked up. Ho was acting very strangely. Alfred Peters stated—l am a mill hand, and was in Court on the 21st April. I Board the charge road over to defendant. His reply was in Norwegian, and meant—- “ I don’t understand what you are reading tome.’’ By Mr M‘Nab—Defendant was excited, but not drunk. He answered respectfully. He was ordered out of Court by Sergt Hogan before he p'ended. By Sergt Hogan—'Hie charge was read over three times to defendant. He said—- “ Where ami to hang my hat?” I can't swear he was drunk. I won’t swear lie was

sober. By Mr McNab—l reckon when a mail can walk straight he is not drunk. As fains my judgment goes I should say he was not drunk. The defendant was ordered hy the Bench to pay Os costs. POLICE V. WAHNEK. The defendant was charged with being drunk ill tho licensed house of Diehard Hutchinson, on the morning of April 21. Alfred Peters was sworn as interpreter. Sergt Hogan stated that about half-past ]2 a.in. on the 21st April, I visited Hutchinson’s house, and found defendant in the parlor drunk. By Mr McNab—l will swear that was the correct time. Reardon was there. I don’t know that Warner was employed on the DannHess. T swear the man was drunk. '!!• . first sitting on a chair, hut he ■ shortly after f came in. I was listpreviously. At a quarter past 12, I heard a party call for liquor. I said in my evidence to Mr Dive that I heard the drinks called for, and heard M r Hutchinson serve the drinks. I heard the drinks drawn from the machine. I could tell Mr Hutchinson’s voice. By the Bench—l was admitted when I demanded to be let in. I saw Mr Hutchinson, Davidson, Reardon, and defendant who t-'ms drunk. He was sitting and standing while I was there. I heard the pumps drawn. Constable Olaohcn, stated—l was with you on the morning of the 21st at half-past twelve. 1 went with you into Mr Hutchinson’s house at that time ; defendant was there drunk. Cross-examined—l have seen moil go across the niudflat when the tide was out. I never tried it myself, and would not like to. For the defence it was urged that the defendant was not drunk, and that he was at Hutchinson’s lawfully. He and others could could not get to their vessel on account of it being on the bank aground. Joseph Warner deposed During the day I had two brandies and two beers. I asked fora bed at .Hutchinson’s about 10 p.m. Daniel Davidson, a ship carpenter, stated that he was in Hutchinson’s house, after II p.m. on the night of April 20, and saw defendant who was then sober, and continu ed so until witness left at half-past 11 o’clock. By Sergt Hogan—l was not, there when you called at half-past 12 on the 21st. Mrs Mary Hutchinson was called by Mr McNab, stated —1 am the wife of Riohard’ll ntchinson. I remember the night of April 20, and the morning of the 21st. The Daunt less was hard and fast on the niudflat, and defendant stayed all night at the house. Defendant was not drunk. I had no beer on draught; I bad nothing but bottled beer. Davidson was there. No liquors were served after 11 that night. The beer engine was not used. The Bench dismissed the case, but ordered the defendant to pay costs 1 Is. POLICE V. PEAK. This case was adjourned from last Court day for decision, was dismissed by the Bench, as an objection was taken by the learned counsel that the Marlborough Public House Management Act was invalid, wnich proved fatal to the ease. ’I he information charged defendant with permitting gambling in his licensed house. POLICE V. WILSON. John Wilson, of Canvas Town, was summoned for a breach of the Marlborough Public House Management Act, but at the request of the Police the charge was withdrawn. POLICE V. HUTCHINSON. Mr McNab appeared for defendant. After a considerable amount of discussion between the Bench and Counsel, it was resolved to take the ease to the Supreme C’ou rt. The conditions on which a re-hearing of the case Police v. Hutchinson will he granted arc that (1.) All the witnesses are forthcoming on a day to he fixed and the evidence taken afresh. (2. The defendant or his solicitor to elect on which charge the ease shall he heard rt supplying of drink. (J,) The fine and costs already paid not to enter into the case at all on its being reheard. POLICE V. DORREEX. Defendant was charged with, on the 24th of April, not having his lamp burning between sunset and sunrise, and pleaded not guilty. Mr McNab appeared for the defence. Sergeant Hogan stated that at about a

quarter-past five a.m. on the 24th the lamp over Dorreen’s door was not hurtling. 'Phis was corroborated hy Constable Glachan.

The information was laid under section 11 of the Marlborough Public House Management Act. which provides that every licensed publican shall have a lamp fixed over the front or principal door of his house, and shall keep the same burning from sunset to sunrise. The case was dismissed, as there was no evidence given to show at what hour the sun rose on that morning. POLrCE V. DOKREEX. This was an information for a breach of the Vagrant Act, whereby defendant was charged with having used threatening language on the night of the 2(>th April. ,\h- McNab (who appeared for the defence), objected to the information on account of the charge being informal, and the Bench granted leave to the Police to amend tho information. The learned Counsel commented on the fact of the Police perse■ting the defendant, saying that every Cu day frivolous charges were brought Court, . • w hjch he was at great expense against hi.*... defending. If this persecuand trouble m - - would render it iintion was continued- p a y ],j s license, possible for Mr Dorree- d were “I will Ihe words alleged to he ustv , internet allow you or any d ma.fcrc with me.” 1 Sergeant Hogan deposed —On the nigiof the 2(3th April, about half-past 11 o’clock I was on duty in Havelock. Defendant had a permit from tho Licensing Bench to keep his house open for the accommodation of people attending the Foresters’ Ball. I went into the house that evening and Saw persons there who were no . supposed to belong to the party. Seeing people there half drunk and fearing a disturbance, I called Mr Dorreen outside, and said, “ I hope Mr Dorrecn there will he no disturbance here to-night.” On this he appeared to get excited, and said he didn’t want any policemen in his house. He could ho his own policeman, and should there he any disturbance he could sling those who caused it into the street, and the police could do wliat they liked. He followed mo out talking very loudly, and tried to excite tho sympathy of the outsiders who collected round, and in their presence he repeatedly struck one hand into the other and said, “I will not allow you or any other d man to persecute me.” I was forced to leave the premises. I considered the defendant surrounded hy his friends, and did not deem it safe to remain.

Cross-examined :—I had a right to go there as defendant had a permit. I called him into the passage. The language was used in Lucknow-street. It is not a fact that I have been there several times. I believe, had I forced my way into the house there would have been a breach of the peace. I considered it my duty to consult Glachan. He heard the language used. By the Bench :— Some of the people were very noisy, and pulling one another about. The hall took place partly in one place and partly in another. Constable Giachan stated I remember the 2fith. About half-past 11 p.m. I went into Dorreen’s house and saw you call Dorrcen outside into the passage, and heard you speak to him. He said he did not want any policemen in his house, and that he would act as his own policeman. He followed you out into the street. Dorreen said Sergeant Hogan was persecuting him, which you denied. Dorreen said he would not allow any d— — man to persecute him. This took place in front of the house. There were about 20 persons present. Dorreen was excited. I remember our having a consultation. We did not want to he up all night. Ultimately we had to go away. By the Bench :-We did not want to he up all night. Shortly after 12 o’clock I went home to bed. I left the Sergeant at his office. Any breach of the peace would have come from Dorreen’s. I was told he had an extension of time that night. For the defence it was urged that the misfortune of Dorreen was, that in every case he had got the hast of the police. The license given to him that night was for the hall guests. The police had no right in the house. When they first called defendant was at the Town Hall, at the hall. The police had no right there only on an information. Defendant was telling the Sergeant a piece of his mind. James Wilson deposed : —I am a sawmiller. I remember the night of the hall. I held a hall ticket, I had a lawful right to he in Dorreen’s house. I could not say whether Dorreen was off the verandah during the altercation. He said, “ I will he reasonable with anyone, but I don’t like to he persecuted.” I did not see anyone drunk nor anyone particularly excited. I saw no reason to believe there would he any breach of the peace there that night. Cross-examined hy Sergeant Hogan -I did not hear the word used in the information. Dorreen said he did not want to be persecuted. I did not see you come out of the hotel. Thomas Jones stated :—I am a miner living at Dorreen’s Hotel. Sergeant Hogan and Constable Glachan came into the house on the night in question and spoke to defendant who said he would not he persecuted. The Sergeant said he would go into his private house if necessary. I heard no swearing. I was there all the time. Cross-examined by Sergeant Hogan : I saw you come into Dorreen’s through tho passage, and heard him say he would not he persecuted. I did not hear the word “ d ” used. I can’t say Dorreen was excited. I did not see Dorreen strike one hand into the other. William Dorreen stated : On the night of the 2(>tl>, I was at the Foresters’ hall at tho Town Hall with my wife. About 2 minutes past 11 a message came to me saying the police were in my house, and had ordered my father, who was left in charge, to shut the bar. Sergeant Hogan called me into the passage and said. “ Look here, Dorreen if there is anything wrong I shall summon you.” I told him I was quite capable of managing my own business. He replied, “ You are grumbling now because I am cautioning you.” I was very guarded in my language. I simply relighted tho lamps after they had been put out hy my father. Cross-examined by Sergeant Hogan I did not swear at you. H. L. N. Clarke deposed to Dorreen being sober at 11 p.m. Witness was at the ball and conversed with him there. I saw him again before 12 o clock at his own house, when he appeared perfectly rational. The Bench retired to consider the case, and when they returned into Court the Chairman said “We don’t entertain the idea that the piolice have persecuted the publicans, but there appears to he a large amount of ill feeling existing between the people and the police, and if anything of this sort is brought forward again it will be dealt with more severely. With respect to the words used there appears to he a certain amount of doubt, and the defendant will have the benefit of it, but he will have to pay the costs, amounting to 13s. MILLS V. RDRAM. This was a judgment summons for £l2 f>s (kl. The defendant did not appear and the amount was ordered to be paid in two monthly instalments, or in default 14 days’ imprisonment,