POLICE COURT.—This Day.

Thames Star, Volume XIV, Issue 4555, 10 August 1883, Page 2

POLICE COURT.—This Day.

(Before fl. Kenrick, Esq., R.M.) SUNDAY TBADINCK Matthew Vaughan, licensee of the Queen's Hotel was charged withi selling liquor on Sunday the sth inst. Mr Miller appeared for the defendant and stated that he did not intend to deny the charge, but he wished to lay the facts before the Bench. On the Sunday in question Mr Vaughan w as at Coromandel, Mrs Vaughan was not present. Mr Vauehan has a number of boarders, and Mrs Liddell who supplied the liquor had done so under the impression that she was supplying the boarders. Mr Vaughan had Riven instructions that during his absence no liquor was to be sold at prohibited times .except to boarders. Sergt; Major Kiely described how the constable had seen three men enter the hotel on the day in question, and upon going into the house, discovered them drinking. Mrs Liddell, who was in the house, said that a boarder had " shouted" for the men. Mrs Liddell swore that she had supplied the men the liquor, but did so under the impression that the men were boarders. Bhe had been told by Mrs Vaughan not to supply liquor to any person other than boarders. The Bench said that as Mr Vaughan was away, he would be lenient. It should be very careful, though, in taking such defences. He would take the defence offered in mitigation of the penalty which must be inflicted as the law was broken. A nominal fine of 5s and costs would be inflicted, but the conviction must be endorsed on the license, as the law allowed no option in the matter. ANOTHER BBEACBt. Charles Curtis, licensee of the Pacific Hotel was charged with keeping his house open for the sale of liquor on Sunday the sth inst.

Mr Miller appeared for the defendant and stated that he would place the facts before the Bench, and ask it to say if there was a breach of the law. A man named Gibbs went into the hotel on the evening in question, and said he had come all the way from Para and naked the defendant to giro him a pint of beer, which he did, he was not charged for it, and there was no intention of charging, for it. Sergt.-Major Kiely said that the police saw a man named Gibbs go into the Pacific Hotel on the Sunday evening in question, and looking through a window, saw Gibbs inside drinking. They then went in and found that the man was drinking beer. The constable took Gibbs in charge as he was under the influence of liquor. Mr Curtis helped the police to remove Gibbs, who was then looked up for being drunk.—Constable Dunn's evidence was to foregoing effect. Edward Gibbs, a resident in Grahamstown, deposed that he was in Curtis' Hotel on the night in question about ten o'clock, asked Mr Curtis for half a piut of beer, which he gave him; the constable then entered, and Gibbs threw the beer in the flre, so that if he didn't drink it the constable should not. The constable then said, "You've done me, now I'll do you; you're drunk." He did not see it till then ; he was looked up, but was not drunk. When in the Court he had not pleaded guilty ; he simply said to the Bench that it was " the first time he was in such trouble, and ho hoped he would be dealt leniently with." He had told Mr Curtis that he had travelled some distance that day. Had had four glasses of beer that day; The Bench said it was absurd for the witness to expect it to believe that he was not drunk, when he allowed himself to be arrested and locked up all night, and did not attempt to call any evidence to disprove the charge when it was laid against him. L. Beet, sworn, stated that he was staying in the Pacific Hotel on Sunday night. Saw •Gibbs go in, and he got some beer. Gibbs was not drunk. Ele was speaking rationally to a friend of his. The constable did not attempt to arrest Gibbs until after the latter threw the beer in the fire. Heard Gibbs say he had been in the country all the afternoon. He said to Curtis after the man was arrested that he was surprised at him allowing the police to arrest the man as he was not drunk.

Charles Curtis deposed that on the night in question Gribba went to the hotel, and stated that he had just come from Puru, and asked him to give him a glass of beer, which he' did after some hesitation. Constable Dunn went into the hotel, and taking Gibbs by the shoulder attempted to take the beer from him. Gibbs threw; it in the fireplace, and dropped the measure. The man did not ap« pear to be in any way drunk. He thought the man was wrongfully arrested for drunkenness.

The Bench said that some stress was laid upon the fact that the man Gibbs bad travelled some distance that day, and was a traveller according to the Act; the section provided that a traveller meant a person who had slept the previous night at least three miles distant from the hotel. He thought that Gibbs was the worse for liquor on the occasion, and the licensee should have taken more precaution against the law being broken. The case.was: proved, and the defendant would be fined £5. MAINTENANCE. Rose Bennett complained that her husband, Frederick Bennett, had failed to comply with an order made by the that he should contribute 10s a week to the support of herself and child. The Court sentenced defendant to one month's imprisonment,