case had been adjourned, he having on the- previous day ; conducted himself in a degrading mannerj was Wiia; put in tb.3 witness box.t-Inspector Maltard: Before I examine you.are you desirous iof making any explanation of your "conduct '.yesterday in Court'—Witness:: Yes.—Well, .state what you desire to say.-.—That they fined 'me rather too much.—Did you have beer at j defendant's house recently ?^-Yes, I visited it ;in company with John Thornley.—lnspector ! Mallard, after receiving some- evasive answers jto questions he had- put, remarked that he Iwould have to examine witness as an adverse one. He trusted the man's-conscience would not permit him to perjure- himself.—Mr Cook 'objected to this sort of intimidation on the part of the Police Inspector.. He- regarded it as an .attempt to bully the witness. — Witness admitted drinking witli. Thornley,. the informant, but said he was hanged if he knew whether it was beer or nofe—MivFish: Wasn't it liquor of any kind : I ckmt believe it was. ■ He had! spoken to defendant before c'-ming into Court; about1- this case.—< Inspector Mallard: Where do you live?— Witness: I don't know-;: yesterday I lived in gaoL—lnspector Mallard:.- You were bailed out last night Witness: Yes-;:missus sold all the furniture to do it.—The Bench ordered witness to stand down.—John. Thornley.repeated the evidence adduced by hiinithe previous day. He called at defendant's residence with the man Tennant, asked for some beerj with which he was served by defendant, and paid for it.—^ln spector Mallard: Wasthere any artifice, craft, subtlety in the mannen of serving.—Mr Cook , objected to the witness-being prompted in this ! manner. For the defence he urged that the evidence had not been sufficiently substantiated. The Police had also forgotten to prove that defendant did not hold' a- license. Then there was the point whether, the- Court possessed full jurisdiction in such a, case.—lnspector Mallard: That objection has already-been overruled.— In reply to His Worship, the Police stated that defendant had been summoned for a similar offence before, and one of his servants had been' fined Lso.—The Bench.was of opinion that the ( case was sufficiently-proved,.and had no doubt' as to the truth of the testimony given by Thornley. The bUier witness (Tennant) con ducted "himself most discreditably, and occa sioned one of the most discreditable scenes ever witnessed in the Court.. 