S.M. Court.

Manawatu Herald, 20 September 1902, Page 2

S.M. Court.

(Before A. Greenfield, E-:q., S M.) Thursday, Sept. 18xh. CHIMIN AT.. Police v. W. F. Gray. Mr Hankins, with Mr Reads, appeared for defendant. Bergfc. S agpoole prosecuted. The defendant was charged with, That daring hours at which licensed premises are directed to be closed did sell alcoholic liquor to William McCreanor, and Did expose liquor for sale during prohibited hours, and Did permit drunkenness on licensed premises, to wit, the Post Office Hotel. (The following is the continuation of the evidence of the above case heard on Thursday last.) William McCreanor stated he resided at Wyeth’s boarding house on ,80th; left that place on following Sunday about 6 o'clock; went across to Gray’s; went for pair of boots his wife had left there on Saturday evening; no one was about and returned between 6 and 7 o’clock; saw the man, Prank Gall; went into one of the rooms; had a soda and limejuice from Gall; the room was adjoining the bar; remained there about half an hour; soon as Gray came down he ordered.him out of the house; saw his wife there before Gray came down ; was in the room" when his wife came in ; she was the worse for liquor; she had given him some money that morning; did not see Gray give his wife any drink; ha was tight that morning—woke up drunk; his wife wanted him to go out to his work; he went out; did not remember helping his wife; his wife brought home a couple of bottles of beer on Saturday night; it would be half an hour after that his wife followed him.

By Mr Hankins—Could not say if it was not Mr Gray who served the limejuioe and soda ; was muddled. Sarah Wyeth stated Mrs McGreanor had been cooking for her; on the Sunday morning she left to find her husband at about half-past seven; she had drink on Saturday night, and she was half tight on Sunday morning ; she had a drink of beer in the scullery before leaving; saw her some time afterwards going towards the river, near nine o'clock; her husband and another man was with her; they were holding, one, each arm. "

Constable Forster stated on Sunday the 81st August last; saw Mrs McOreanor ; about 10 minutes to 11 was going down Main street, and when opposite Walker’s shop saw

MrS ''McGManoTTomlng^pbwfc l left side ; flhe was staggering about drunk, and lie locked her up; went down to the Post Office again and whilst standing there saw Charles Nelson,come out of the front private entrance door of the Post Office Hotel; he was staggering about the street and came towards him ; cosla see he was intoxicated and knew ho was a boarder and lodger in the Post Office Hotel; told him if he did not get away out of the street, would lock him up; two men, named Lee and Edwards, took him away up the tramroad; went over to the Post Office Hotel; saw no one in any ol the rooms, but heard some one in the bar; knocked and Mr Gray came out of the bar; spoke to him about Nelson; he said the man did not get the drink there. By Mr Hankins-—Mrs McCreanor, by herself, keeps, quiet and steady, but when her husband is with her she is always in drink; remembered removing her from Levett's; he remembered Mrs McCreanor threatening to put him up for selling her husband a bottle of beer on a Sunday. This was the case for the prosecution.

Mr Hankins asked if there was any case to answer. In the first charge the witness denied he had the liquor. The next information about exposing liquor for sale showed there was a total absence of exhibiting liquor. Thera was no evidence, and the complaint was simple in the extreme. The third charge of permitting drunkenness in licensed premises only showed that this woman yr&e drank, but drunk when she wept into the house. How could it be said that Mr Gray permitted drunkenness ? The offence needed other proof than that of the only witness—who was not reliable. Ho did not think Mr Gray should be asked to enter witness box to answer such evidence as had been given. The S.M. said as to exposing liquor for sale the case must be dismissed. The only evidence for selling liquor during prohibited hours was that of Mrs McCreanor, which was not reliable, and he therefore dismissed all three informations.

Police v. Mark Perreau. Charged with cruelty to fowls. Defendant pleaded guilty. Constable Forster stated that the defendant had sent away a box of fowls, in which nine' fowls were placed in a space large; enough for four. He took possession of the box. If the fowls had been another ten minutes in the box most of them would have been dead. Fined 10s, costa 7s. John S. Callingham was charged with having disobeyed a maintenance order. No appearance of accused, but he had paid &2 into Court, leaving 32a due. The case was adjourned to next Court day. -