POLICE COURT.-Times Day.

Thames Star, Volume XIV, Issue 4430, 16 March 1883, Page 2

POLICE COURT.-Times Day.

(Before H. Kenrick, Esq., E.M.) DBTJNK. An inebriate was fined 5s or one hour's imprisonment. NOT HAVING A LIGHT. Matthew Yaughan was charged with neglecting to keep a light over the door of the Queen's Hotel on the morning of the 10th inst. A'Constable proved the non existent of a light at the time stated. He admitted that the night was a rough one, and he thought the wind had blown the light out. The police did not press for a conviction. The defendant said he would remove the lamp and put a new one in. its place. The Bench said it appeared the offence was accidental, but warned the defendant that he was responsible for the state of his lamp. ' A NUISANCE. Frederick Wells was charged with allowing offensive matter to flow from his premises in Owen street. Constable Slight gare evidence to the effect thaton the 14th inst. he was near defendant's premises used as a butcher's shop, and experienced a bad smell from a grein fluid, flowing into the side channel from the defendant's plat-3. He I went into the rear of the shop, and saw some green liquid in the yard, which had been discharged from a tab : this also gave forth an offensive odour. It looked like water which had been used in cleaning sausage skins. The defendant was not on the premises at the time, but his son denied that the smell arose from their premises. There was no defence. Fined £2, and costs. STORING D4NGEEOTTS GOODB WITHOUT A LICENSE. S. Mears was charged with bavins dangerous goods on his premises, which had not been licensed. Mr Mears asked for an adjournment, but eventually agreed to go on with the case. J. B. Mason deposed that he waß Inspector of Dangerous Goods. On the 14th instant he went to the premises of the defendant in Cochrane street. He was accompanied by a constable. He there seized fifteen cf.ses of kerosene, each of which contained eight gallons, which were removed to a licensed store. The defendant has a license to keep 80 gallons on his Pollen street premises, but 'nqt any in the Cochrane street store;Const. Hazlett gave similar evidence. The defendant stated that the kerosene was placed in the store without his knowledge or authority by the caner. It should have been taken <o the magazine. ■ Thomas Arnold, carter, deposed that he carted the kerosene from the Goods Wharf on the Bth March. Was engaged to cart brandy, which he did, and afterwards took a lo.d of sundries, amongst which was the kerosene. Carted the Goods to Mr Mears store in Cochrane street. Had the key of the store ;it was given to him by the boy in the Pollen street store to put the brandy in. Saw no one in the store when he got there. Had not told Mr Mears or his employee that he had taken kero ene to the store.

The Bench said that it had been proved that the kerosene was in the store, and he must presume by the defendant's possession of the store that he knew what was in it. The absence of Mr Mejrs from his business was no defence. The goods were on the premise? with his consent. The offence had been, proved; 'the evidence shewed the kerosene to have been cared to the store of the defendant on the Bth, and it was found there on the 14th but evidence for the prosecution was given that it was seen there only on the 14th, the benefit of the doubt would be given to the defendant, who wonld, be fined the minimum penaltj allowed by the Act, which was £20 and wrts 7s. The Act provided for forfeiture of the goods seized, but further steps would have to be taken in that direction. A fortnight would be allowed the defendant in which to appeal, if he thought it necessary. A. PREVIOUS JUDGMENT. F. Wells, the defendant in a previous case, here appeared in Court, and stated that he had been unable to attend when called. The Bench agreed to hear what the defendant had to say, and read the evidence given by the police, over to him. Defendant said he had on the morning in question been washing some vegetables out, and his premises were perfectly clean, as they always were. , He believed the police had a down on him. The Bench said the defendant might be in^ the habit of keeping his premises clean! but it was clear that he must have some offensive matter oa his premises in connection with his business. As he had stated that he was absent when the offence was committed, the penalty of £2 previously inflicted was reduced to 235.