POLICE COURT. TE AROHA. TUESDAY, MAY 22nd, 1888. UNKNOWN

Te Aroha News, Volume V, Issue 266, 23 May 1888, Page 2

POLICE COURT. TE AROHA. TUESDAY, MAY 22nd, 1888. UNKNOWN

Police v. Smardon. This was an infoiinatiou laid b\ Seigeant Emeison ai^ainsi S. T. Smardon, proprietor ol the Waiorongomai Hotel, of unlawfully silling liquor at, a time dining which his licensed premises should be closed, viz, on Sunday , May (Hh. .Mr MrtJrcgor Hay for defendant. The following 1 witnesses were examined: — L'etor Rice, (sworn) Stated : I reside at Waiotongom.ii, I remember Sunday, May (Jth, and was in ,Snnml<.n's hotel on the morning of that <lay, three otheis were m till him on that occasion, viz., Smith, Littlcjohn, and Hill, we had drinks together. 1 paid for the drinks. Littlejohn shouted. This would bo about ten on Sunday morning. In reply to Mr ILvy : I do occasionally board mid lodge at Smardon's hotel. Thomas I Till, (sworn) : Am a labourer working on the tramway. 1 know Mr Snu'.nlo.i who keeps the Waioiongomai hotel. On Sunday morning, 6th May, [ was in his hotel. L went in (o have a drink. .Rice, Littlejohn, and Smith, were with me. Littlejolm called lor drinks. Rice paid Cor the drinks. William (;. Jjittle, (sworn). lam a miner residing at Waiorotigouui. J know Mr Smardon, and remember being in his hotel on Sunday morning, May Oth. Littlejohn, ltico, and Hill were also there. We went there to get a ilrirk, We all had drinks ; Peter Rice shouted, ll was Kiee paid tor the drink. In reply to Mr Hay. Mr Smardon was present when the drinks were called for. I do not lodge at Mr Smardon's. 10. H. Littlejohn, (sworn) lam a. book-keeper residing at Wmoron^ouuu. 1 know Mr Smardou, and was in his hotel on Sunday morning Gth of May. L went in with three others named Ilice,

ftmilli, and Hill. liefore wo wont in K' ice asked us to have a drink. After we wont in 1 called for drinks, Rice paid for them. I think Smardon was in the bar, J saw Rice» pay for the drinks. I was not lodgiu^ at the hotol, but had my meals thero. In reply to Mr Hay : I know Rico, ho was not a traveller, ho slept in Wniorongomai I believe the previous night. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Hay for defendant submitted that there was no case to defend, seeing that the prosecution had not proved that defendant was the holder of a publican's license ; no. license having been put in evidence. If is Worship said : Prom the evidence before him it was qnite clear defendant did trade on Sundays, in fact, no evidence could be much stronger, and li« would advise him to be very careful in futuio, nevertheless he held that the objection raised by defendants solicitor, with respect to the nun production of the license, was fatal in the present case. Case dismissed.