RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1359, 22 September 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

(Before J, Booth Esq., R. M.) Breach of the Licensing Act. Alexander Allanach, proprietor of the Gisborne Hotel, was charged on the information of Constable Wilson, that he did on the night of the 20th instant, sell liquor, between the hours of midnight and six o’clock in the morning, thereby causing a breach of the Licensing Act. Mr Brassey for the defendant pleaded not guilty. Mifls Armstrong deposed—l am a barmaid at the Gisborne Hotel. I was employed on the night of the 20th instant. I left the bar at 11 o’clock and went upstairs. About 12.15 I came down again to let Mrs Allanach go to bed. I remained in the bar parlor. I did not see any champagne brought. There were four or five gentlemen in the room. I know some of them. They are not lodgers in the house. There were six gentlemen altogether with the old gentleman. To Mr Brassey—The old gentleman had been staying at the hotel two days. I heard the other gentlemen in the room ask for drinks, but xVlrs Allanach refused to supply them. This was just before the police arrived. Mrs Allanach said it was too late.

Morgan Morrice—Commercial traveller. I know the defendant, and also his hotel. I was there on the night of the 20th. I was there a little after 12 o’clock. There were four of us there altogether. We went into the bar parlor. Miss Armstrong was not there when I went in, but she came in afterwards. There was an elderly gentleman there. No champagne was brought in while I was there. There was champagne on the table. No drink was brought in while I was there. I did not see the champagne paid for. Nothing was said about 18s 6d. The gentlemen who were staying there might have paid for it the next morning. I had some of the champagne. I think they all had some of it. I was in the room when Constable Wilson came in. I did not stay there that night. 1 could not say if any of the others stayed there. I went out the back way when I left. To Mr Brassey—The house was quite orderly. I have seen the old gentleman referred to. I have not been living there. W. Hurst—l am a commercial traveller. I know defendant and his hotel. On the night of the 20th I was in his house. I went into the hotel before 12 o’clock and after. We were in the little parlor. I saw Miss Armstrong there. I did not see any champagne brought in. I did not see any drink whatever brought in. I had some champagne It was a boarder invited me to have it. I think the others had some. I heard nothing said about money. Mrs Allanach was there. I did not sleep there that night. To Mr Brassey—When I went into the parlor I entered by the passage. The bar was shut. No liquors were brought in while I was there.

Constable Wilson—On the night of the 29th I was on duty. I know the defendant and his hotel. About a quarter past 1 o’clock on the 20th I noticed lights in tho bar and bar-parlor. As I was passing the door in Childers’ street I found it partly open, and I previously heard voices in the bar parlor. Tho voices were female and one male. I entered the hotel and found about half a dozen persons in the room. I met Mrs Allanach in the passage. She endeavored to get the door of the parlor closed. I saw a champagne bottle and 2 gr 3 glasses on the table. The cork had been drawn out of the bottle. Mrs Allanach told me they were all lodgers that were in the room. There was one gentleman left the house as I came out.

To Mr Brassey—l am sure Mrs Allanach told me that they were all lodgers. They were not making a noise. I cannot say whether there were any glasses other than champagne or not. This was the case for the prosecution.

Mr Brassey submitted that there was no infraction of the Act whatever, and that nothing had been done contrary to the Statute. He contended that if a lodger was staying at the house he could invite a friend to have a drink at any time. While he stayed in it, the hotel was his castle. He asked the Court to take into consideration the conduct of the defendant. He sold a bottle of champagne to his lodger, and the lodger invited his friends to partake of it. The defendant had not sold the champagne to any one but the lodger, in fact he had, according to evidence, flatly refused to do so, when they asked him. Again he submitted there was no infraction, nor any intention to do so.

His Worship differed from Mr Brassey. There was an infraction. He ruled that the defendant could not sell liquor to lodgers after hours for others to partake of, but the lodger could obtain it for himself alone. He would inflict a penalty of LI, and costs. Drunkenness. W Donaldson was fined 60s for tho above offence, in default of payment 7 days imprisonment. Abusive Language. A. McPhail was fined L2 for making use of abusive language. In default of payment 7 days imprisonment. J. R. Brooke v. A. Thomas. Claim 5s for carting goods. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff for amount with costs 7s. Thursday. Breach of Bye-Laws, Bourke v. Boland.—Mr Boland admitted the offence. Mr Whitcombe appeared for the prosecution and asked for full penalties as the negligent act of the defendant was ‘fraught with much danger to the public. Constable Wilson saw the defendant working at the engine up to 12 o’clock on Saturday night. There were no lights. It was a moonlight night, otherwise it was dangerous. The engine was left there all day on Sunday and Sunday night. It was right across the footway. A person walking along might not see the rails at all. The rails protruded out several feet beyond the engine.

By Mr Boland—There wes plenty of room to pass round the engine. Mr Whitcombe asked for substantial penalty. The rails were left in a most dangerous state and might have resulted in serious harm to the public. His Worship said that care had not been taken. Had it not been a moonlight night it might have resulted iu some disaster. As it was a moonlight night ho would only impose a penalty of £1 and costs £1 10a, in default distress.

T. D. McDougall v. Mrs W. Clarke.— Claim for legal expenses. Adjourned till Tuesday next.