POLICE COURT.—This Day.

Thames Star, Volume XVII, Issue 5256, 21 November 1885, Page 2

POLICE COURT.—This Day.

(Before H. Kenrick, Esq., 8.M.)

Wm. James Seccombe, licensee of the Wharf Hotel, Grahamstown, was charged with baring sold liquor at an bonr when the house should bare been closed, viz., 2.40 a.m., on the 18th of November, 1885. Mr Miller appeared for defendant The police save evidence to the effect that on the evening of the 17th November there was a soiree and concert at the Academy of Music. At 240 a.m. on the 18th inst. the constables saw his house open, and on going in saw the bar open and lighted, two barmaids in the bar, several men in the passage, one of whom had a glass of brandy in his hand, and also some men coming out of a back room. On asking the licensee he said he bad invited the bandsmen over to have a drink, and that he was not selling liquor. Messrs Wm. Martin, and Patrick Belahuoty were called, for having been in the passage of the hotel on that occasion, the former stating that ho was snpplied with a glass of brandy, and the latter that he had gone there with the intention of having a drink, but had not asked for one. The former was a bandsman, but the latter was not. The Court decided that the defence raised was not corroborated by the fact of there being two barmaids, and that the last witness Delahuoty, though not a bandsman, had gone there to get a drink, and therefore recorded a oonvietion against the license, with a fine of £2 and coats 13s. -•* BUNDAY TBA.DIKG. James Watt, licensee of Ihe City Glasgow Hotel charged with selling liqnor oq Sunday Bth November. In this oase the present lioensee Aaron Griffiths proproduced the license, and the Court fined Watts for the charge of having no light 5i and costs, and on the second charge of selling liquor £5 and costs, and conviction to be endorsed on the license. PAEHOA POWDBB CASE, John Phillips senr. and John Phillips Jr., were charged with a breach of the Explosives Act 1882 in keeping 2751bs of gunpowder used as blasting powder in an unauthorised enclosure, near Fraser street in Paeroa township, then occupied by them on 2nd November 1885; and also for on the 13th Ootober 1835 having kept loOlbs of dynamite in the same unauthorised enclosure. Mr Theo. Cooper appeared for the defendants and Mr Miller on behalf of the police. Mr Miller said that be believes the facts of the case are admitted by defendants, who claim the right to hare the explosives stored where they ure, Th> proceedings have not been instituted with any desire to punish, but to prevent such great danger in the future to the township of Paeroa, in the centre of which this private unlicensed magazine is situated. However careful, the consequences might have been very serious. Under the Act the defendants, as dealers, are prohibited from keeping in any other than a public magazine any quantity of gunpowder over 50ibs. A large number of dealers at Paeroa and the Thames have been com? pelled by the Act to keep their powder in the Thames magazine, but Messrs Phillips refused to do so, and the police attention to it was drawn by the Harbor Board, An inspection showed there was tbi-* large quantity stored in an unlicensed magazine, and there proceedings' are the result. Two witnesses, Constables Mitchell and Law, gave evidence proving the examination of premises, the finding of the powder, and the quantify. On pros* examination, they both admitted* that every suggestion made by the Police bad been carried out, such as erection of a lightning conductor} &o,

This closed the case for the prosecution' Mr Cooper raised several points of contention in favor of the defendant, to which Mr Miller replied. The Warden, in renewing the arguments, said he would reaerre his decision until this day week, the 28th inst. The second charge was then proceeded with, and being purely under the explo* , sives Act, was dealt with under Us provisions. The Court deemed Mr Cooper's defence untenable, and decided against the defendants. The dynamite was ordered to be removed with as little delay as possible, and they would be fined 12s 6d with costs £? 19s. ,-■-■■■-■■—--■ .■.-.*'■..- ■'•