Alleged Breach of Lioensing Act.

Manawatu Herald, 21 January 1893, Page 2

Alleged Breach of Lioensing Act.

__4 MrC C. Kettle, R.M., at' Wanganui, issued instruetious to the police to bring before him with th,e{ .drunkard, the publican who served him with drink. We have pointed -out how difficult such a course would be owing to the very:bad jevidenQeofttbje informer. However, the Wangaxnii police have endeavoured tp,, ,exessijte orders, and the following ; report' ¥r6m the. Herald will show ■ with * what success '■*.—■■.' ' : - ;; " ; ; r " ; . uysy-tii John Mahoney (Baiiway? 'Hotel) was charged with having ujnlttwfhity sold liquor to William ■ Sommerville while he was in a state of intcfcrica* tion. Defendant pleaded not 'gi^lty, and was defended by Mr Lloyd. W. Sommerville, : laborer; of Mopstownij said he had- two drinks attendant's place on Saturday (he , , havings th,en had too much), but he did not think his condition could have been detected by the person who served hinij By Mr Lloyd : Could not say who served him ; probably too drunk to remember. Witness: Icould not'reniember whp served us. By Mr Lloyd: If you were so drunk as not to be able to recollect who seryed j(oUt how can you remeinher wnai poiise you were at ? By the Bench' : l - He >had the first drink at the Masonic, then came on to town, aqd -after ■ 'baVin^ | drink at " some house on the i&B&h.y went to Mahoney's, and 1 'after that lost his senses. In frirtteri cross^ examinations witness appeared to get cohßidei'ably mixed and -macle-several contradictions as to : some detailt.! Sergeant-Major Anderson gave cvii , dence as tp the arrest of Sommerville on the Saturday, and in 'aftawer ' to Mr Lloyd said that his (Sommerville'sv story at the time ;^6f hi^riamst and that made to the Pourt n&t agree. - This concluded the (i«Bd n f6'r ; j the prosecution.-^-Mr Lloyd ;-submitted that there was no. case, ! and asked that the' "iiiformationVbe dismissed. The prinaipal wijbnf 88 was so confused that he knew^ijptjjipig a| all, but if His Worship thougKt iihere r

was a case to answer he would call evidence. — His Worship said ths evidence was unsatsfactory, but the truth had better come out and the evidence had better be called. Mrs Mahoney said she was in the bar on Saturday nearly all day but did not see Sommerville come in, IToii, a half caste, who partly looks after the bar, said Sommerville was in on Fri • day, but not on Saturday. His Worship decided that the evidence was not sufficient to establish the case and the information would be dismissed. 'J bere was no doubt the man had been served with drink, but it was not clear who Avas the offender. If the evidence was reasonable proof of the offence in a case of this kind, he would consider it his duty to in flict a substantial penalty. Defendwas charged with a similar offence in the case of one, James Christie, and pleaded not guilty. Christie said he had baen drinking privately prior to going to Mahonoy's, and ho remembers getting inside the bar door, but nothing further until he awoke in the police cell. William Traftbrd went to tho bar of the Railway Hotel with Christie, but both were refused drink by Mahoney's barman, who considered that they had had plenty and told them he Avould nob serve them while they Avere in that state. His Worship said it was impossible to convict on such evidence, and dismissed the information.