RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Inangahua Times, Volume II, Issue II, 4 June 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT M AGISTRATE'S COURT

■■♦ Thubspay, Jvnb 3, 1880. (Before W. H. Befell, Esq., E,M.) Bbejujh of Licensing Act. John Da wson was charged on the informatibir df Sergeant Neville with a breach of the Licensing Act, in keeping open his hotel after prohibited hours. Defendant was wiled but did not show Op. , 111. The following evidence was called by the police :— \ Patrick Murphy t I am a raining specu'ator, residing at Reefton. I attended the banquet recently given to Mr Menteatb, at the defendant's hotel. The banquet cloned after 12 o'clock at night. Francis M'Guigan was called and gave similar evidence. The Clerk of the Court proved that no special permit was applied for or granted to tlie defendant for the occasion in question. This closed the ease. In giving judgment the Magistrate said : The Act provided regulations under which special pprmils could be obtained by publicans for keeping their houses open on particular occasions after pro* hibited hoars. Defendant had neglenfe 1 to avail himself of that privilege, and hod been guilt? of contempt in not attending to answer the charge. He would there* fore be fined in the sum of lCs and the cost of permit, and pay the costs of Court. DITTO BEPBATO. — Malon was charged with selling liquors without being duly licensed so to An. j Mr Lynch, who appeared for defend* I ant, admitted the offence, and explained I «he circumstances under which the law had been violated. There had been no fraud upon the revenue in the case, as the license for the premises' was in existence, I but simplv bad not been transferred to ! the defendant. It was a mere technical breach of the law, and he would there* I fore ask the Bench to inflict a mere nominal penalty. -The Bench said the information had ''been laid in consequence of certain facts which came to light at the last sitting of the Court. It was the duty of the Court to see that the Licensing law was closely observed- He was willing, however, to believe that the tacts were as represented by Mr Lynch, and that there bad been an offence of omission rather tban.of com mission, for which reason he would io» flict the merely nominal penalty of £1, and costs. He trusted, however, that the two informations beard that day would be a warning to others in the district, i Civil. Ca.se*. Eureka Company v. Thompson, 18s 4d, for calls. Judgment for amount. In the following cases judgment went by default -.—Smith and Barkley v. Thompson, £10 4s 9a } same v. Giles, £5 lOd 5d ; Schulhof v. King, £2 Is ; Kater v. Johnston (fraud summons). Ordered to pay amount within one month. Gallagher Bros. v. Hart, £14. Smith and Barkley v. Thorn, 6s. Bbks v. Gabdmbb. This was a claim to recover the sum of £3 12s 6d, for work and labor done. James ftees : I am a carpenter, and was working for defendant on the Reef ton su pension bridge. Wa» engaged at 16s 8d pe day. At the finish defendant asked me if I could do without the last week's pay, as he was short, and I agreed to do so. Cross-examined by Mr Lynch : The work was done about three yesrs ago. Ido not positively swear to the correctness of the date. Will swear that I wm not drunk for a week during the time I was working for defendant, but may have been drunk fur two days. Do not know that defendant had to employ a man to put in my place, owing to my being drunk. Never served defendant with a demand for payment, but asked him for the money about eight months after. By the Bench : I might be wrong in the dates in the bill. This closed the case for the plaintiff. William Gardner ; lam County Engineer, and in 1877 1 was erecting a suspension bridge at Keefton, and defendant was emplayed by me on the work. On the dates defendant has b'lled me for he was dead drunk in Beefton, On the 18th saw him incapable in Broadway. I was completely at the man's mercy at the time, and after waiting for a week I bad to get another man, which I had great difficulty in doing, in consequence of a report circulated by plaintiff that there wai no more money coming to me on the con* tract. I produce a bill made out and re* ceipted by plaintiff up to the date he ceased to work for me. Ho did no work for me after the date of the receipt produped. Have good reason to recollect the dates in question, as it was the occasion of a flood in the river during which £30 worth of timber was wasbed away, and defendant, whom I had fully paid up, was not there to assist me in saving it. By plaintiff : Never paid Campbell a baU ance of wages twelve months after completion of the bridge ; paid him a few shillings which I owed b>m, but not for the last week he worked for me, Case, dismissed. Plaintiff to pay £4 7 8 00^9. M'GtJHMN V, MONTaOMSBY. This w§B an ugtiqn to recover the sum $t t

£2, for two days' horse hire to Boatmans and back, and £4, for dutnuge alleged to have been dpne to the animal while under hire. Defendant hid paid £1 15s into Court, in full satisfaction of the demand. Mr Lynch appeared for the defendant. Francis M'Guigan : On the Bth F< bruary defendant came to me and asked to hive a hor e to]3O'tuien's. I fold him that I bad only got a prwp horse, but if he •would call again in about half an hour, I would bare a horee for him. J. waited for half an hour, and as be did not come I left tbe plare ; and when I returned I found that he had taken -^xeji'ap horse out of the stable and left for SoatmSfi^^He kept the horee till the fol« lowing day. AftSr-fa^jopk the mare to Boatman'a he rode her all aß&Trt-^ltedistricfc on the following day. On tbe Baxpe^fejMM^ he brought the mare bsek I drove her witlT passengers to Christy's, and on returning put her in a paddock for five weeks. The mare was very bad after the defendant brought her baok. . Cross-examined : I took four good sized ' passengers in the trap to Cbristys. We left here about 8 o'oclock in the morning and got there about 4 o'clock. It is an old tiick o' the mares to stick up in the river, and she did to on that day. We got home in good | time tie next day. I had to pay 6s a week [ for paddocking the mare, and will swear that it was through defendant's overriding that I had to lay her up. It ie the tule to charge for eveay day that a horse is away from the stable. Don't ( recollect meeting defendant on the ßth and' telling him that bo might take the boise if he would pay for the feed. Never offered the horse to defendant. Canoot soy whether I was the worse for liqnor on the d*y in question. It was my man who gave tbe horse. Swear positively tbat I never told defendant that he could have the horse for nothing. Did not offer to take 12s 6d a day for the horse. Have charged 15s a day for a horse in a few inetanoes, but made a special ogreement for 20s a day with defendant. By the Bench : We started for Christy's immediately that defendant brought tbe horse from Boatman's. Samuel Barr w»s called and proved that he saw defendant with the horse st Cronadun ou the Bth February, and that it was perepiring freely. James Rcnrbnrg, John Hesinp, and the de» fendant were examined, but their evidence did net sustain tbe allegation of over-riding Judgment was therefore given for the hire only, with costs. The Court then adjonrned