POLICE COURT.—This Day.

Thames Star, Volume XIV, Issue 4585, 14 September 1883, Page 2

POLICE COURT.—This Day.

(Before H. Kenrick, £sq,, K.M.) BUNDAY IBADTNG. " James Thompson, licensee of the Thames Hotel, Shortland* was charged with Sunday trading. Mr Miller appeared for the defendant, and admitted the sale of the liquor, hut it was under the bona fide belief that it was to a traveller, as the person who purchased it stated he was. i The defendant was sworn, and stated that on Sunday week a man Darned Crowell went to his house with two other men at 8 o'clock in the morning and wanted breakfast. Crowell stated he was unwell, and had walked a long distance; he asked for a glass of brandy, and another man had a pint of beer. They went away, and Crowell returned shortly after, saying he felt better, and asked for another drop of brandy, and got it. Murphy was a lodger on Sunday and Monday; Crowell had been working at! Marshall's farm about 7 or 8 miles away, and now boards with the defendant. Did net find out until afterwards that Crowell had not travelled that morning. This witness swore that a man named Murphy slept in his house on the Sunday night and the following night, but upon it being shown by the police that the man was in the lock-up on Monday night, ne would not positively swear that he slept on either nights in the house, but he believed he slept there on Sunday night. His evidence was eventually narrowed down to the belief that he saw Murphy asleep in his house on Sunday afternoon. James Murphy deposed that on the morning in question he saw Crowell in the street; the latter complained of being unwell, and ho said he had walked from Hikutaia, he then took Crowell to Thompson's. Gave Crowell half a crown, and he went and had a drink; and returned two shillings to witness. Crowell said to Thompson that he bad come in from Marshall's farm. Stayed at Thompson's on Sunday night. Slept in McKee's billiard room on Saturday night, and Crowell slept in the same room with him on that night. (This witness seemed eoniewhat " mixed up" when crossexamined by the Police; and apparently could not reconcile his statements aa to the movements of Crowell on the Sunday morning). . , ; William Southgate living near the j hotel, swore he knew Murphy, and recollected seeing Crowell outside Thorn p.* | son's hotel on Sunday week morning, he asked witness to go into the hotel and have a drink; he did so, and left. Had not another drink. Had breakfast at Thompson's hotel that morning, he believed at Murphy's expense. Did not pay any attention to what was said at the time. Crowell said he had slept in a billiard-room the previous night. It was Murphy who " shouted ; •■*' that was two drink?. Was quite sure the first drink was with Murphy. Was not sure whether he had two drinks, of a drink and breakfast. ; - ■ \ '''■"■ ■*';-:' .■-■■■''. : Charles Crowell stated—Me came into the Thames on Saturday night week from Mr Marshall's fang. Slept at McKee'i

Hotel on that night. Did not g<x to Thompson's hotel oa the {Saturday night, and Murphy slept in the same room—'(hs bil!iard-room. Got up on Sunday morning early and went iotoThompson's with Southgate and Murphy and each had a drink, Thompson supplied it. Paid Thompson a shilling for two drinks. Had another drink later on and paid 6d for it, and afterwards got Thompson to put three glasses of braudy in a bottle, took it away, and handed it to Constable Stapleton that morning. Did not have breakfast at Thompson's that morning,' returned to Mr Marshall's that . day. Asked Thompson on the Saturday evening if he knew of a boy, as they wanted one for Marshall's farm. Murphy did not lend witness a sixpence or a half-crown. Constable Stapleton sworn. On the morning of Sunday week last, about ten o'clock Crowell went to witness with the small bottle of brandy produced. Before 9 o'clock on that morniog saw Crowell go into Thompson's house'; when Crowell handed him the liquor he seemed as if be had had a few drinks, but was sensible. Spoke to Thompson about letting Crowell go into his house, and he replied he had not let him drink there. Mrs Matilda Drew deposed that she assisted Thompson in his hotel at Short. , land. Crowell slept last night at the i hotel, and at the tea table he stated that " two publican's were into it, and he would have to get one or the other out of it." There are no bottles in the Thames Hotel similar to that produced hhe one sworn by Crowell as having been obtained from Thompson by him, and containing the brandy alleged to have been sold.) The Beach said that from the contradictory evidence before it, it could come to no other conclusion than that perjury had been , committed. The evidence of the defendant and Murphy was of a very unsatisfactory nature. He would put Murphy's on one side altogether, and/ Thompson's evidence was contradicted. The question to be considered was whether Thompson supplied the liquor to Crowell, believing him to be a bona fide traveller; this ho held was not proved, and he considered that Thompson had taken no precautions whatever to ascertain whether they were travellers or not, one of the men being a next door neighbor of Thompson's. He would, owing to the nature of the defence, inflicfc the maximum penalty of £10 and costs, 23s 6d, all 4 endorse the conviction on the licerise..