RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XIII, Issue 4319, 3 November 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS PAT

(Before H. Eeprick, Esq., R.M.) LIQUOR SELLING AT TAIBTTA.

This was a charge against Captain Norris for allowing liquor to be sold on board the s.s. Fingal and s.s. Douglas at Tairua.

Mr Miller said Captain IN orris was unable to get down, but (he steward "was present.^ St had been ascertained that the captain of the Douglas was not licensed to sellliquor. It was intended to take.outa license, but it w.aa found he could not do so until the one standing in his name for the FingaL was transferred —he could not hold two licenses. Counsel would point out that the information disclosed no offence against the Act. Selling was an offence,'but suffering liquor to be sold or disposed bf was not

His Wbrship said that the two matters were so Very different that he must hold the objection fatal to the information. He would, however, appeal to Mr Miller accept an amendment,; dismissal would only necessitate fresh expense, as the police probably'would lay a fresh information.

After consulting his client, Mr Miller agreed to this course. Rudolph Prohl deposed that in September last he was steward of the Fingal. He remembered the trip, and the Captain was not aboard. Supplied liquor on board on that occasion. People came down, saying they were passengers for other places, and he took their word. Ttie boat only lay there an hour. Did not supply anyone unless they l'epresented themselves as being passengers. The captain had instructed him to sell liquors to none but passengers, and never accused him of such a thing. They bad the Fingal's license on board the Douglcs. .They> were only aboard ber three days when they were shifted back to the Fingal. Had been warned by the police not to sell to any but passe.-gers or at the wharf. The captain has no interest in the sale of the liquor ; be is a servant of the company the same as witness.

His-, Worship considered the charge proved. The constable's evidence, he said, was to the effect tliafc it was customary for the steamers to supply liquor at these settlements promiscuously. This was all the worse, as the public house in the district had been closed on accouutof the riois aud drunkenness that ensued, end (hey could not keep the men at work. Now it was even worse on the arrival of ihe Rfermers; they were scenes of riot and floating public-houses. Under the 341h section a packet license enabled the holder to sell liquor on boArd the vessel during her passage to passengers, not at their place of -starting .or destination. The master had not sold the drink, so the steward could only be regarded as his servant in the matter, the Captain being responsible. Apparently the Company made arrangements with the provedore, and the captain's name was used without him having direct authority over the steward. If had not been for the Cap lain not beiug a parly, the penalty would have been much heavier. A. fise of £5 was imposed, costs £6 19s.

As it was shown that there iwas no license for the Douglas the charge with reference to her was withdrawn.

LIQTTOR SELLING ON STTNDAT,

Wm. Fredk. Mason, licensee of the Imperial Hotel, Shortland, was charged with keeping open bis premises for the sale of liquor on Sunday last. Mr H. E. Campbell defended. Constable Slight deposed—-At midnight on Saturday he passed the house of defendant, his; watcb being correct. He passed about jlO minutes afterward, and there was a great noise of singing, and the piano was playing. At 12 25 he knocked, and Mr Mason opened the door. On entering the prssage he saw three men with three glasses before them on the ledge of the window. Tasted two of (hem, and fouijd the liquor was beer. Know one of ; the men, Henry Mo'jse. The house was lighted up, and a woman was in the bar.] Had seen the woman previously in the house, and she seemed to be a resident. ) Went into the adjoining room, and saw a lot of men, bat no drinks. Saw two men at the sliding window towards ;Sealey street, but no drinks. The mcii seemed all more or less.under the influence of drink. Was in the act of asking one of them his 'name i and addre&s, and where be had slept the night before, and an elderly gentleman was about to inform him. when Mi- M.son interfered and said "He slept here last night." Mr Stevens replied " I beg your pardon, I did not, Mr Mason." Witness told Mr Mason not to interfere, when he replied " I am not a new chum; I will hit yon a smack along the bloody mouth." Mr Mason said all the men were boarder, and told all who were not boarders to go out, but none went. Weut down as far as Willou^hby street, and whan he came back about 1 o'clock saw Moase, John Main, and another leave the house. One glass was frothing as if it had been freshly drawn. Whenever he asked a question of persons, Mr Mason interrupted and would answer for them.

Henry Moase, laborer, deposed when the constable came in, ha was slanding at the bar window. Had two half pints of beer that night. There were three empty glasses then, and he did uot think they could be full without his knowing it. There was very little light ia the bar. ft was between 11.30 and the time the constable came in that he had the liquor. Made up his mind when he went in, to have a bed, but Mr Mason would not give him one. Did not see the constable handle the, glasses. Had his drinks soon after he went in, the remainder of the time was spent in talking. A person looked at his watch when the constable came in and it was 12.10 : aim. Heard the constable ask some man, Mr Stevens, his-name arid he said, "I will not, I am a boarder here, and my horse is here." Heard Mr Mason advise him to give his name. Could not tell what occurred in the Sealey street passage. Mr Campbell having addressed the bench for the defence

Mr Joshua Stevens deposed that by a person's watch beside him it was 12.10. The sons table asked him his name

in a rather brusque manner, and he gave it him at once. He wanted to know what witness was doing there. He replied, " I am stopping here, and my horse is here." Mr Mason was coming towards witness apparently (o speak, when the constable shored him back. - Mr Mason said " But you are a boarder; you stopped here last night." Witness replied, "You make a mistake." Witness had taken a bed in the hotel that afternoon. Some warm language was nsed, but he did not hear threats. Seeing there was a bit of a barney on he went. Gave his name willingly when he was asked. Did not hear any singing or playing on Che piano. Witness's was only half drunk, but he was a lodger.

Wm. Curnow deposed that the constable came round into the Sealey street passage, and rushed Mr Mason like a mad bull, Mr Mason was before him, and the constable caught him by the collar and* pushed him aside. He came and looked at the glasses, and they were both empty. Heard Mr Mason say " Don't shove me about." Mrs Mason supplied them with the beer. Saw Moase between 9 and 10 in a room.

Alfred Trotman deposed that he was standing in the passage when the constable came in. It wes 8 minutes past 12 by the clock in the bar. He believed it was Mrs Mason or her sister who was in the bar. The constable rushed in and turned , out the little beer that was in the glasses and tasted ; there was no full glass. No drinks were served after 12, , His Worship reviewed the evidence at considerable length. He pointed out that Moase contradicted the constable flatly, and if his story'was true the case for the prosecution must fail. It was evident he was partial, and had come there with a view to disguising the truth in favor of the defendant, His Worship pointed out various discrepancies between his evidence and that of other witnesses. and considered his statement as to intend ing to sleep there a cock and bull story. He swore he was not out of the passage, whereas Curnow saw him in a room an hour earlier. Mr Kenrick went on to dissect the evidence of the witnesses generally. Trotman corroborated the constable's statement as to his tasting the benr. It was clear Moase and White were not boarders. He held that allowing people to come into this place for business purposes was kreping open. That was a common sense intarpretatiqn, for they would not have been there otherwise. He hold the c;;se was proved. To inflict a light penalty in some instances was only to invite a repetition. It was moat difficult to obtain a conviction in cases of this class, aud some two or three publicans took advantage of that knowledge. The only plan was to make the penally sufficiently heavy, so as to render it not worth their while to risk conviction. The defendant would be fined £5 and costs and the conviction recorded on the license. Throe of these recorded would le .d to forfeiture of the license.

ANOTHEE KEBOiENE CASE.

v Tins was an information under "Datiger-

ous Goods Act, 1869," against Mr Samuel Mearsi for having 80 gallons of ■'kerosene upon his premises in Cochrane street without a license.

Mr Campbell for defendant

Mr Mason put in his appointment under the Act.theGazetteproclaimivigboundaries of Borough, and the Ghzette of 6th July proclaiming kerosene as dangerous goods under the Act.

s His Worship remarked that a new Act had-boon peased this session, and cr.'meinto force in September last, so that the Gazette of 6th July was not now in force, and the new Act provided that it was only certain inflammable articles which would flush at less than 110 degress that came within the Act." He as/red Mr Mason if he had tested the kerooeue,

Mr Mason said he had not, that under the old Act it was not necessary lo test it. He knew there, was a new Act passed, but had not seen it. He asked for an adjourn* ment to enable him to test the kerosene.

His Worship thought Mr Mason had better withdraw the proceedings, as he was not sure that Mr Mason had power to seize it at all until after it was tested and prorei dangerous under the Act.

Mr Mason said he would withdraw the information. .

Mr Campbell applied for costs, but the Court declined to grant costs.