RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXIV, Issue 9662, 23 October 1882, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

iv > « Sattjbday, 21th Oct. 1882. (Before ~R., Ward, Esq., E.M.) Breach of Licensing Act. — t- Hugh -wt.Mollhone, licensee of the Itailway ' Hotel, was charged upon the information of ' Sergeant Bissefc ■with unlawfully Belling t( .' certain "liquor to William Whelan,'' James Day, ■ and others on Baturday^'nigbt' laßt (14tb. inßtant) at 11.45 p.m., the' defendant being tbe holder jof a.lO o'clock license. — Defendant before the case was proceeded with objected to the. information as being bad on- the ; face of it, inasmuch as the alleged-Bale of liquor to different persons on tbe 'same' day constituted separate offences- and could not be included in the same information, and also that a charge of selling to " others " could not legally.be instituted — Sergeant Bisset contended that the information, as it alluded to a variety ' of persons to whom liquors were' sold on the same day, was good.— His Worship ruled otherwise and directed .tlie information to be amended, so as tb. : leave but one name in it. — Sergeant Bisaet.then decided to proceed in the case of. Whelan only, and the" summons was amended accordingly. — Defendant pleaded not guilty to the charge, > and- denied having served Whelan with; any liquor whatever on the day in question. — Sergeant Bisset de-posed-that on the Saturday, night. he knocked three times at defendadt's hotel between' ten minutes and a quarter to 12 o'clock.' Obtained admission and found four persons in the bar, Whelanbeing one, and before him, on a table, was a glass ")e£ liquor. -^-By His Worship: Did not ' Bee Whelan take the glass. It was standing on the table close to Whelan. — By defendant : Witness laid the information on Tuesday last. Did not lay it on Monday, because he pleased himßelf about the . matter. Before laying it, witness .was aware that defendant bad written an official letter to Inspector James complaining of the' manner in which witness obtained admission to the house ; .Would have laid the information wßethef that letter was written or not. — His Worship said that the motive for laying an information had nothing to do with the charge. — Defendant remarked that his object was to show that Sergeant Bissett had brought the charge out of sheer aggravation and from an old grudge. — Cross-examination of witness continued : Gould not say when the liquor was sold to Whelan.' The_ police had passed the house on their beat several times between 10 and 12 o'clock, and made no complaint. — His Worship said that, even supposing the police had what was commonly known as "a jjtjlown". on defendant, the charge ,*~ must, -after all, be decided upon the *,- evidence. — Defendant said that he denied the charge, but sy : wished prominently to bring before ■'■;,- the Court the motives which actua- - ted the police' in tbe matter. — 'William Whelan, describing himself- as a labourer, stated that he went into defendant's hotel at 9.30 on the night .. in question, ; accompanied with Mr o'Dea'feod ; MrMcKittriok, from Patea. Stopped" u there : till about 11.30, but would; f nqt '[ swear positively as to the exact hoiiri " Between those hours witness may have'gone out from the hotel, with Mr O'Dea.to talk a little business with him, and returned at 10.30 or 11. The bar was' closed when witness returned, and he never tasted any liquor on that;occasion. Did not see anything served tb'"the' other men. Defendant objected. 'to' the witness being asked questions "as" 46' the other men, aa to

•whom no charge was brought. As a matter, of- .fact he • (defendant) would admitj.that, he served the other men, who were.hoarders. Witness said that he never tasted liquor in the hotel af fcpr a quarter to 10 o'clock, though he had - it in his hand when Sergeant Bissett entered at a quarter to twelve. — By defendant :■ McLittrick and ODea were lodgers in the hotel that night. From 9.30 till the time that the sergeant came in, witness was never served with liquor, except with one glass which Mr McKittrickpaid for before 10 o'clock. Witness, only took a"spoonfull'" of that, as he didn't care for it. Defen- ■ dant had no evidence to offer, except bis own testimony, as he did not consider he had any case to answer. He could 1 state distinctly that he. only served Whelari with one glass, and that to the order of Mr McKittrick. Sergeant Bisset's statement that there was delay in his obtaining admittance ,tb .the house was wholly untrue. The glass was served to Whelan about 9.46, and was found on the table next morning with very little drunk out of it. — Sergeant .Bisset had no questions to ask the defendant. — His worship, in giving judgment, quoted the 155 th section of the Act, which rendered it illegal to sell' or expose liquor^ for sale after the hour of closing, even though purchased before the hour of closing, and the 170 th section, which rendered it unnecessary to show that any money passed or liquor was consumed. The evidence showed that part of the liquor was consumed before. 10 o'clock, and Whelan denied that he took any afterwards. A conviction could not be recorded without some proof that liquor was consumed after 10 o'clock, for the Court could not assume that it was so. The charge must be dismissed. — Defendant applied for costs, but His Worship ruled that they could not be awarded against the police, except in the case of the witness Whelan. The Court then adfourned.