RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XIV, Issue 4483, 18 May 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY.

(Before H. Kenrick, Esq., R.M.) SUNDAY TKADING.

J. D. Walker, of the Empire Hotel, was summoned for soiling liquor in his licensed premises on Sunday. The defendant admitted the charge, but said that he sold the liquor at the request of a lodger.

It appeared that Constable Haslett was on duty on Sunday last, and he saw per* sons going to and coming from the hotel. Upon entering be saw a man named Roy being supplied with liquor by the defen dant, and in a room were two men with vessels before them. Saw two more men sitting dowu, and one had a glass in his hand which was full of beer. Defendant said that he opened his house at the request of a lodger, and the liquor had been so supplied. His Worship said that there was no excuse for this offence. The landlord had a right to supply the lodger with drink, but not the other men, and therefore he would inflict the full penalty of £10, and costs, 13s. SUPPLYING LIQUOR TO AN INTOXICATED . PEBS9K. Daniel Barty, licensee of the Prince Imperial Hotel, was summoned for supplying Thomas Catran when intoxicated, with liquor. Mr Miller appeared for the defendant.

After the evidence of the police and Mrs .Richards, for the prosecution, had been taken. Mr Miller contended that the absolute sale to Catran had not been proved ; the Bench ruled that consumption by Catran was sufficient.

Three witnessss were called for the defence for the purpose of shewing that Catran was not sufficiently drunk to enable those who gave him the liquor to see it.

The Bench read the defendant a very lecture, telling him that the offence bad been clearly proved, and by the evidence it was shewn that he was drunk too on the morning in question. This was the second breach of the licensing law by the defendant, and a third would have the effect of cancelling his license. Men who could not keep sober should not be granted licenses ; if they could not restrain themselves, it would hardly be expected they could place any restraint on others who were inclined to get drunk. The law not only said that publicans must not supply liquor to men absolutely drunk, but they must not incite to or encourage drunkenness. In this case the maximum penalty of £20 would be inflicted, and the con* viction endorsed on the license. KNOTT V. TAPLIN. The evidence of the plaintiff was taken for the purpose of being forwarded to Patea, where the case will.be heard.