MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2735, 8 November 1894, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka— Tuesday, November 6,1894. [Before C. A. Wray, Esq., S.M.] CIVIL CASES. J. W. Miles v. Malone—Claim £ 1 4s. —Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs. ALLEGED BBEACH OF THE LICENSING ACT. Archibald Hay was charged with that, being a person against whom a prohibition order was in force, he did procure from H. Rothwell, a licensed publican, through his servant, Annie Maclean, one bottle of whiskey. Accused pleaded "Guilty," but asked if he could be considered responsible for his action whilst suffering from delirium tremens. He had been arrested and placed under medical treatment for drunkenness. Hiß Worship agreed to consider the matter.

H. Rothwell, licensee of the Temuka Hotel, was charged with supplying liquor to Archibald Hay during hours when his hotel should have been closed; also with supplying whiskey to Archibald Hay, knowing him to be a prohibited person ; also with supplying to Archibald Hay liquor, he being then in a state of intoxication.

Mr Whitje appeared for defendant, who pleaded " Not guilty." Constable Bourke conducted the case for the police, and called

Archibald Hay, shoemaker, residing at Temuka, who stated that he recollected Sunday week, the day he was locked up. He did not know the date. He had a slight of going to the Temuka Hotel on thataay. He did not remember the time. He Went to the back of the house. He saw two or three men there, whom he did not know. He asked for Mrs Maclean, who came out. Witness was standing between the kitchen and the passage. To the best of his recollection asked Mrs Maclean for a bottle of whiskey, as he was not very well. Procured the whiskey, but could not say who from. Did not pay for it. Could not remember what took place. Had no recollection of asking to have to have the whiskey " booked " to him. Could remember taking it away. Recollected nothing further until he woke up in the lock-up. Constable Bourke said that he considered the witness should be treated as hostile, as he was suppressing evidence. Mr White said that the only hostility was that the witness did not give the evidence the constable desired.

By His Worship: Had been iu liquor for a week. Meant by his statements that he was absolutely not in a condition to recollect what took place. By the constable: The signature to the paper produced is mine, but evidently written while under liquor. By Mr White: Had not seen any person whatever in connection with this case. Had not seen or spoken to Mr Rothwell or Mrs Maclean since he was locked up. Had drunk plenty, too much, that day. Had got liquor out of the town. Might have had fifteen glasses. Always drank whiskey. Could not recollect any of the men he saw. Would not like to back his own opinion as to what took place against three sober people. Could not swear if he entered by the back or front. Believed he went out by the front. Was not well acquainted with the premises. Was certain he apoke to Mrs Maclean, and got a bottle of whiskey. Was very drunk. Asked Mrs Maclean to trust him.

By Constable Bourke: Knew Mrs Maclean by sight. Had never had liquor in the house. His fine had not been promised to be paid for him by anybody connected with the case. He had not had any conversation at all about it. Constable Egan stated that at about a quarter to eight on the night of Sunday, 28th, he was passing the Temuka Hotel in company with Constable Bourke. Observed Mr Hay come out of the right-of-way and stagger upon the footpath. Went towards him and saw he was drunk, and that under his coat was a bottle of whiskey (produced). Locked him up for drunkenness. He made a statement that night. In the morning he made another statement.

By Constable Bourke: Considered Mr Hay knew what he was saying. He is a widower, living in a little two-roomed place. He is a slave to drink occasionally. He was very harmless while in liquor. By Mr White: On Monday morning he was very shaky. He was charged that morning and sent to Timaru for medical treatment. Considered it necessary. The right-of-way at the Temuka Hotel is used by people who do not frequent the hotel. Had known Mr Rothwell since he had come to the hotel. Considered him. & respectable man. He had mad.Q, great improvements at the hotol, Had no occasion to suspeqli any underhand practice. Knew Mrs. Maclean as a very respectable) woman. Had served several prohibition notices on Mr Rothwell. Thomas Bourke, constable in charge of Temuka station, gave evidence corroborative of the circumstances of the arrest. After the arrest went into the I hotel and found Mr Rothwell with other men in a little room at the back of the bar. Hay next day made a statement. After he was remanded to Timaru he made statement and signed it, His memory seemed clear,, aqd after coming from Timaru he made the same statement. Ho did not adhere to that statement now. For the defence Mr White called John Miles, a groom in charge of an entire horse: Stayed at Mr Rath, w 11's hotel on Sunday, October 28,th.. Was at the loose-box dQQJS, about six; yards from the back gate. Saw Hay enter the back gate, which witness closed after him. Witness ' went through the private passage to the front door-. Was certain Hay did V,0% go. to the hotel. Saw the poliob pass and return. By Constable Bourke : Could not swear how long it was before they passed and returned. Was positive Hajf could not have returned an. 4 gone to, the back door. The distance wouid be over two chains.

By His Worship : Did not actually qqo. him go out the front gate. Henry Rothwell, licensee- of the Temuka Hotel, stated that he knew the witness Hay tn - a * ne was prohibited. On Sunday, October 2Gth, had the key of the bar for the whole day, except for a few minutes between three and four o'clock, when Mrs Maclean had it to serve some cyclists. She returned it. Had the key of the storeroom locked in the bar. Did not see Hay that day. No person could have been served without his knowledge. Was always at home on Sundays. Had whiskey of the brand produced. By Constable Bourke : Mrs Maclean, his housekeeper, served occasinally in the bar. Had two storerooms, one for groceries and the other for liquor. By His Worship: Had only one key for the liquor storo. No one could get in without his knowledge. No liquor was left out. Mrs Maclean did not get any whiskey from tho bar that day. Knew nothing about Hay being ou the premisea

until he heard of it from the police. Heard that he was to be summoned before he was actually served with the summons. Annie Maclean, housekeeper at the Temuka Hotel: Knew Archibald Hay. Did not see him at the hotel on Sunday week. Did not see him at all that day. Had the key of the bar between three and four o'clock to serve some gentlemen on bicycles. Returned the key to Mr Rothwell, and did not have it again till next day. The key of the Btore was generally kept in the bar. Believed it was there that day. Very seldom went to the store. Did not supply anyone with a bottle of whiskey that day. It was untrue that Hay saw her that day. By Constable Bourke: Only went to the bar to relieve Mr Rothwell, generally in the morning. Knew Hay pretty well. He was not often in the house. Had served him sometimes with ginger wine. This concluded the evidence. His Worship said it was a singular coincidence that the man should be seen coming from the hotel with a bottle of whiskey, and that he should make a statement as to where he got it and give details of a conversation. He could not, however, altogether accept the statement of a person admittedly under the influence of drink, especially in face of the other evidence. He must dismiss the charges. This ruling would have to apply to the case against Hay, which would be dismissed. POACHING. Timothy Sugrue was charged with unlawfully attempting to take trout, and pleaded " Not guilty." Timothy O'Keefe was also charged with a similar offence, and pleaded " Guilty." Mr Salmond appeared for the informants, the Geraldine County Acclimatisation Society, and asked Hu Worship to impose the maximum fine of £6 on conviction, as the offence was getting a very common one. Boyd Thompson, the ranger for the Geraldine County Acclimatisation Society, stated: On Sunday, October 28th, was at Cooper's Creek, between Orari and Rangitata. He was accompanied by H. Phillips. They lay concealed on the bank of the creek. First saw the two aocused between one and two o'clock. Knew them individually. Saw the six defendants come up the road with three boys and another man. They came to the creek and O'Keefe took off his coat, turned up his sleeves, and begin groping in the water for trout. Saw O'Keefe catch two fish. Sugrue was about 30 or 40 yards away smoking with the third man. Aiter about half an hour the third man left and Sugrue went np the creek with what looked like a spear. He found afterwards ft was a split stick. Believed it to have been the handle of a spear. Saw him crossing the creek and going up and down for about an hour and a-half. O'Keefe was fishing all the time. When they left off they came in witness's direction. Witness asked had they any fish and they replied no. Believed it was O'Keefe who spoke. One of the boys waa there with O'Keefe's jacket under his arm. There had been a box with each of them. Took the jacket from the boy and shook it. Five trout fell, and two were under the standard. Told them he should take the trout, and he also examined Sugrue's stick. There was a> piece of string lapped round the end. Charged him with having a spear, which he denied, saying it was a walking stick. It waa of hard wood about 4ft long. Told them he should report the case. Both Sugrue and O'Keefe said it was the first time they had been there. By Mr Sugrue: Considered the split in the stick was meant for the insertion of a spear. Harry Phillips gave corroborative evidence. T. Sugrue denied ever having taken or attempted to catch a trout. When seen walking along the creek side, was just poking about where.the boys saw an eel. In reply to His Worship, he said he saw several trout. Did not attempt to take them. Mr Salmond said that it was sufficient that he was in O'Keefe's company. The mere fact that he did not catch any was not evidence that he was not trying to do so.

His Worship enquired into the circum> stances of the accused, and fined the accused each £3, with costs, and Bolicitor'a fee, to be payable in a week. The'fines were paid.