THIS DAY.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3759, 14 January 1881, Page 2

THIS DAY.

(Before Harry Kenrick, Esq., R.M.) THE Al'liEQD SLY &ROG SELLING- CASE. Ellen Kane was brought up on remand, charged with selling liquor illegally. Mr Dodd defended, and Sergt.-Major O'Grady conducted the prosecution. v Alfred Hatton said he was called out of the Court by Bachelor, but had no conversation with him. He remembered being in the Occidental Hotel on the 23rd December in the evening. He went into the sitting room. There were three or four persons in the room. Feeuey, Smith, Jones, Bachelor, Behren, and Phillips were in the house. They had no drink in the house while he was in the house. He had ginger-beer and cloves, which was supplied to him in the bar. Phillipg had something to drink, but he could not swear what Phillips asked for. He served no drinks in the house that night. There were glasses in the room, but he was not. Witness made a statement to Mr Thompson. Witness did not say that people had drinks in Miss Kane's house, and that he would tell the truth. Witness bad been pretty often to Miss Kane's. He did not see the keg of beer in the room. He did not endeavor to evade the police. He did not see the drink paid for by Phillips.

Eichard Feeney deposed that he was in the Occidental Hotel on the night in question. He had some cigars. He saw Phillips with a glass of something in his hand.

A witness swore that after the police had.been in the house he was served with beer, but that he did not see any money pass for it.

James Jones said that he was in the Occidental Hotel. He saw Phillips come in, but he had nothing to drink. He saw no liquor drank or paid for that night. Joseph Smith said that he went into the house with the last witness, and they played at joker. They played for pastime.

'Sergeant-Major O'Grady : Is that some kind of drink?

Witness: Halton was playing cards when Phillips brought in his drink. He saw no drink served that night. This concluded the case for the prosecution.

His Worship in summing up said that if he were to decide on the case as to whether the defendant supplied beer or not on the evening in question, that he would do so on the first portion of Phillips' evidence. The defendant had stated that Phillips was an informer. But Phillips not only swore that he was supplied with beer, but also deposed that the others in the room were also drinking alcoholic liquors. This was refuted by seven witnesses who swore they hadnothing to drink that night. He did not know whether Phillips was telling the truth, 01 whether all the witnesses had conspired together to shield the woman from the consequences of her illegal act. There was the evidence of another witness, who swore he had beer after the police entered the hotel, but who did not know if it was paid for. Phillips had sworn that the men were drinking, and that they had paid for the drink, and that he had seen them do so. The evidence of the numerous witnesses was directly against this. His Worship said he was not on the Bench to meet out justice in the abstract, but according to law. There was strong presumptive evidence that the beer was paid for, but, as he could not go on presumptive evidence, he should dismiss the case.

The decision was received with considerable applause from a large number of the great " Unwashed " who were present. Mr Kenrick said he should look through the evidence, and see if there was anything that would warrant him in ordering a prosecution for perjury on either side. The Court then adjourned till 2.30.