MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2443, 17 January 1881, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMAEU—THIS DAY. [Before R. Beetham Esq., Chairman of the Licensing Court., and K. El worthy Esq., Licensing Commissioner.] IJREACH OF THE LICENSING ACT. The landlord of the Criterion Hotel, was charged with supplying alcholic liquors on Sunday last to other than bonafida travellers or boarders. A second charge against the defendant of keeping his bar ,open after hours was withdrawn.

The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge. Inspector Pender spoke very highly of the way in which the defendant’s house was conducted. The Bench said that taking what Mr Pender had said into consideration they would inflict a small penalty in the present case, but the defendant must be careful for the future. He would be fined 40s. ANOTHER CASE. William Warne, of the Railway Hotel, Pleasant Point, was charged with supply ing alcoholic liquors to other than bona fide travellers or boarders within prohibited hours viz between the hours of 11 p.m., on the 11th and 6 a.m. on the 12th of January. The defendant pleaded not guilty. Thomas Goodman, labourer, deposed to calling at the railway Hotel on Thursday week. Was supplied with liquors after 11 at night and 6 in the morning. Several other men -were there. Mrs Hope supplied witness with some gin. He lived in the house.

Cross-examined by the defendant: Could not say whether the other men present were boarders. He and one of the men said that they would not call for any more drinks because they would be refused as it was after hours.

Charles Bowles, labourer, was at the Eailway Hotel on the night in question, but could not recollect whether he had any liquor after hours or not. Was not sure whether he was sober at the time. The defendant stated that he had instructed the barman not to serve liquors after hours. Was living at the hotel and looking after it, but received no remuneration.

Mrs Hope who was present during the hearing of the case, now stated in reply to the Bench that she was in treaty with a party for the sale of the house. She denied that the liquors had been served as alleged. The Bench commented rather severely on the case, and inflicted a fine of £lO. The Court then adjourned.