Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 6144x7680 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

SUM.IONS CASES.
W.lliam M'G.'vy, licensee of the Star
ano Garter Hotel, was charged with having
kept his premises open for the sale of liquor
on Sunday, the 16th inst.
Mr Sparke appeared for defendant.
Sergeant M'Vane stated that about aquarter
to 1 o'clock on Sunday morning, the 6th
inst., a complaint was made to him, and he
went to the corner of Hunter and Watt
streets, and heard men and women singing.
He walked up thie street, and found that the
noise came from defendant's hotel. Witness
knocked at the front door for about 10
minutes, and while standing there a man in a
half drunken condition came round the
corner as if from defendant's back premises.
Witness proceeded to the back, and, opening
a gate, walked to the dining room and up the
etairs. Defendant tlen made his appearance,
and witness informed him that he was making
a nice disturbance, and then pushed past and
entered a parlour. He here saw Mrs.
M~'Greevey, the barmaid, and three men,
who gave their names as S. W. Herman,
William Paxy, and J. A. Toby, and said they
belonged to ships in the harbour. Defend
ant and his wife said that they (the men)
intended staying there all night, as they had
taken beds. On the table were a decanter half
full of sherry wine and a glass, and on the floor
underneath the table were three empty
champagne boltles, and one about a third
full. In a small room adjoining, which was
used as an upstairs bar, there were a large
number of champagne and other glasses dirty
on the counter. Mrs. M'Grevy patted wit
ness on the back and remarked that it was all
right, as he would not hurt them, and she
requested him to have a drink. Defendant
also said the men were all friends and cap
tainls of ships. Witness said he should sum
mon M'Grevy, as he believed he had been
breaking the law. About half-past 1 o'clock
two of the men went to the railway station
and spoke to him there.
This concluded the evidence.
The Bench stated that the evidence led
them to think it likely that the men were not
lodgers, and that they were consuming drink
on the promises after 11 o'clock, but there
was nothing to show the Bench that they
had not been there before that hour.
He (defendant) might have been
guilty of allowing drink to be
consumed on his premises after 11 o'clock,
but there was nothing to show that the
house had been kept open for the sale of
liquor. The case was, therefore, die.
missed.
$