MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIII, Issue 293, 18 December 1878, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURT.

[Before 11. E. Curtis and W. Oldham, Esq., J.J.P.J C. 11. Martin was charged with allowing a horse to depasture on the Suburhan North road, contrary to the by-law of the Suburban North Highway Board. As the horse was accidentally at large, anil it was the Jim offience under the by-law, a five was inflicted of Is and costs. Defendant said he thought it was very hard that he should be brought there on such a charge, as the horse being on the road was the result of an accident, and he felt convinced that the Legislature had never any intention of punishing those who accidentally came within ils fold. It was only erring humanity— Here Mr Martin's addrese was cut short by the next case being called. BREAcn or the Licensing Act. Mrs J. Clarke was charged with selling to W. Dixon on the night of the 10th inst. a bottle of English ale without a license. Mr Bunny appeared for the prosecution and Mr Pitt for the defendant. Mr Bunny stated that he was prosecuting on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers who were naturally desirous of putting a stop to the sly liquor selling that was going on in Nelson. W. C. Dixon: I called at Mrs Clarke's on the evening of the 10th iust., in company with Franklyn. He bought some cigars which we smoked. We were shown into a back parlor, when I asked if we could be supplied with a bottle of English beer. She said Yes, and went out of the room and fetched one. She was away a few minutes. I asked her what was to pay, and she said " Two shillings." I gave her half a crown, and she said " You surely don't want any change." I said it was a matter of indifference to me, and left it with her. Cross-examined: I -was employed by the Licensed Victuallers Association. lam an individual who can go either into a store or into the bush. Previous to becoming, a common informer I was a wool sorter. When I weut into Mrs Clarke's I said I was tired and asked to be allowed to sit down. When I asked for heer Mrs Clark did not tell me she had none in the house, or had to go to a public house for it. She did not ask me to give her the money first. I lived at Foxhill once and went away without paying' my creditors. I was sober when I went to Mrs Clarke's. lam not certaiu whether Franklin was, but if I were to weigh the difference in my own mind I should say he was. If my memory does not sell me I should say he was perfectly sober. James Franklin stated that he was present when Dixon called for and paid 2s 6d /or the bottle of beer. I wag perfectly sober, so was Dixon. We had had about three glasses of beer each. There was a young man in the room in which we had the beer. He passed out as we went in. I can swear that the beer was paid ror. That was all I care for I don't know what I am to get for this business. I have not yet been settled with. The Collector of Customs was called to prove that Mrs Clark had no license to sell liquor. This closed the case for the prosecution Mr Pitt in opening for the defence raised the legal objection that Mrs Clark being a married woman could not make a contract of sale. He did not consider that the Licensed Victuallers' Association were to be complimented upon the means they had adopted for detecting the sale of liquor, or upon the I individuals they had employed. He asserted that Dixon had asked for a bottle of beer, and that Mrs Clarke had gone out to Mrs t Moore's and bought one for which she paid eighteenpence. She told Dixon the piice, and he gave her half a crown and told her not to bother about the change. They did | not buy the beer from her. but simply re funded her money that she had expended on their account. The witnesses came before the Court as common informers, and for this reason alone their evidence should be re» ceived with considerable caution, but in addition to this not only did the evidence of one not corroborate that of the other, but they positively differed on important points. Cecilia Clark; I was nerving a gentlemen.

with cigars when the two informers came in They bought some cigars, and asked to be allowed to sit down, and I showed them into the parlor. They asked if they could get something to drink, and I said I did not keep any in the house, but could get it. I waited thinking they would give me the money, when Dixon said, " Oh, you get it, and I'll pay you buck." I took eighteen pence out of the till and went to Mrs Moore's aud bought the beer. Dixon asked what was to pay, and I told him I had paid Is 6d. He gave me half a crown and told me not to mind about the change. Cross examined: I attend generally to the chop and the business. Dixod showed signs of having been drinking. The statement they made about my saying the beer was two shillings is perfectly false. Mrs Moore, landlady of the Windsor Castle Hotel, remembered defendaut coming in at nine o'clock one evening last week for a bottle oe ale. Mrs Toogood was in the habit of cleaning defendant's house once a week. She had access to the whole of the house, and never saw any supply of liquors. Her own dinner beer was always fetched from Mra Moore's. This closed the evidence. The Bench stated that there had been an infringment of the law, but only a technical one, so they should inflict a nominal fine of one shilling, and costs £2 lOs. Mr Pitt gave notice of appeal. Another Case. There was another case of a similar nature against Mrs Clark, in which the evidence given on the two sides was directly contradictory. After hearing the evidence, the Bench said that they believed the evidence for the prosecution in preference to that of the defendant, and as regards the remarks made by the counsel as to the informers they would say that it was the only way of detecting such crimes, and was frequently resorted 'to in England This case was more clear than the other, and it appeared that there was something like a system of supplying liquors without taking out a license. Defendant was fined £2, and costs £2 7s 6d. Mr Pitt gave notice of appeal. j ! ' i j 1