RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Inangahua Times, Volume VIII, Issue 1339, 21 December 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

♦ Thursday, December 20th, 1883. (Before W. H. Revell, Esq , R.M.) POLICE V. M'KIMY. This was an information charging defendant with a breach of the Licensing Ac , in Belling spirituous liquors, not being licensed so to do. The prosecution arose out of a transaction with the trustees in the baukrupt estate of A. J. Breen. The trustees let the hotel to the present defendant, who obtained possession of the premises, but who failed or was unable to carry out the terms of the lease. The lessee, however, held possession, and, although the license of the house had not been transferred to him, proceeded to carry on the business. In order to regain possession the trustees had defendant charged with the offence in question, but upon its being called on in Oouri, it was stated that the difficulty had been settled, and the withdrawal of the information was asked. The information was accordingly dismissed. TRELOAR V. PRENTICE. This was an action to recover a sum of £30, being the value of four shares in a lease application, and £10 as special damages. The facts were that Prentice applied for a mining area which was called the Carlyle Gold Mining Company. He sold four shares in the speculation to Treloar at £5 each. The ground was never surveyed, nor was the lease executed, but subsequently to the sale to Treloar, Prentice and other shareholders tried the ground, and found that the stone in it was not payable, and they therefore abandoned the application, and Treloar, '. who had in the meantime re-sold, now '

sued for the refund of his purchase money. The case was heard at the previous sitting of the Court when judgment was reserved until to-day. The Warden gave judgment a» follows : In this case the ground was taken up on speculation, and Treloar knowing the nature of the ti e purchased an interest in it for what it was worth. It was not shown that Prentice )iM,<i forced the sale, the evidence being Unit Trolwr had himself solicited the purchase. S'one was subsequently found in this lease, when it was tested by Prentice and other of the shareholders and found to be unpaya le, and acting in the interest of Iris co-share-holders Prentice did not consider it advisable to incur any further expense, and allowed the application to lapse. Therewas nothing to* show tha Prentice had acted improperly, and judgment would therefoi'e be for defendant, with 255. costs of Court and £2 2s. professional fee. Mr Jones for plaintiff and Mr Lynch for defendant OXIiEY V. POWER. This was a judgment summons calling upon defendant to show cause why lie had failed to satisfy a judgment of the Court for £3 10a., obtained on the 23rd October last. Mr Hindmarsh, legal manager of the Globe Company, proved tnat defendant was the holder of a contract to supply the company wi h mining timber for a period oftwelve months On 24tb November I ' ■RBt~ defetuSSS* recalled a progress" pay- | ment of £24. The company required : about £24 worth of mining tiiuber monthly. Order made for the payment of the debt by instalments of 40s. per month. There were one or two other small debt cases, which were devoid of public interest. The Court then adjourned.