The Courts.

Alexandra Herald and Central Otago Gazette, Issue 380, 20 August 1903, Page 5

The Courts.

WARDEN'S COURT, CLYDE. Saturday, 15th Augmt. Before F J Burgess, Faq. Warden.) Jas M'Arthur, special dredging j&l claim, Molyneux River, near Clyde.— Adjourned to 22nd August. S Byford, exchange of water rsje liceese No 4431.—Amended by substituting the name of Benjamin Naylor as executor under the will of the above named Samuel Byford, now deceased. Surrender accepted and license in exchange to issue under provisions of " The Mining Act, 1898 "—term ot 42 years for mining and amalgamation purposes. C F Fiasandier, exchange of water race license No 1549.—Surrender accepted and license granted for a term d 42 years. John G Hyde, extended alluvial claim, west bank of Molyneux at Green Feint—License granted for a term of 42years Walter Anderson, tail race, Eagle Farm.—Adjourned to 12th September, Fred A Haig, residence site, Brassknocker Creek, above Clyde-Blacks road.—Adourned to 12th September. Unity Gold Dredging Co, special dredging claim, Leaning Rock district. —Adjourned to 12th September for , completion of survey. Matau Gold Dredging Co., amalgamation special dredging claim 90/900 " and extended dredging claim 405 c.— , Adjourned. Henry F Nees, special dredging * claim, Leaning Rock district—Granted for a term ol 42 years. Andrew Beattie, residence site, Oromwell road, four miles above Clyde, —Granted for a term of 42 years. a% Unity Gold Dredging Co, special dredging claim, Leaning Rock district. —Adjourned till 12th September. B Naylor, application to be registfred as owner of mining privileges.— Sjaruck out at request of applicant. " Unity Gold Dredging Go, surrender absolutely special d r edging claim Ettaa No 196c.—Adjourned to 12th September. ' J Pattison, application for duplicate of residence area certificate, — Order that duplicate certificate shall be issued.

WARDEN'S COURT, ALEXANDRA. Tuesday. August 18th. (Before F J Burgess, Esq, Warden). ADJOUSNED FBOH liAgT COURT. A Williamson, special dredging claim, Manuherikia River and beaehes,—Adjourned to September 14th. Clyde Gold Dredging Co., special •" dredging claim on Molyneux and Manuherikia rivers near Alexandra.— Adjourned to September 14th for completion ot survey. E Appleton, special alluvial claim, Galloway Flat—Adjourned to September 14th for completion of survey. Last Chance Co, amalgamation of special alluvial claims 609 a, 231 a and 144a,—Adjourned to September 14th. Clyde Dredging Co, surrender absolutely special dredging elaim 384 a.— . Adjourned to September 14th. . L Ryan, special dredging claim, ■• Csirnhill district—Adjourned to Sep* timber 14th for completion of survey. Emma Bruce, water race, Camp Gully, Galloway Flat.—Struck out D Bringans, special dredging claim, Cairnbill district—Adjourned to September 14th, for completion of survey. Olrig Dredging Co, special dredging ekim, Manuherikia River.—Adjourned to September 14th for completion of survey. Same, special dredging claim* Manufctrikia River.—Adjourned to September 14th for completion of survey. W J Scott residence site, ManutwrTkin Road.—Adjourned to September 14th. Olrig Dredging Co, surrender absolutely special dredging claim, 26/99 a. •-Adjourned to September 14th, James Rivers, surrender absolutely special dredging claim 456a.—Adjourned to September 14th. 8 Gamerom, surrender absolutely Special dredging claim 568a.—Surrender accepted. mew business. » J Richardson,, residence site, Galloway Run.—Adjourned. E Appleton, water race, Hopes Creek. —Adjourned. T M'Math, special dredging claim, Manriherifcia River. Preliminary hearing disposed of; final hearing fixed for September 14th. Jessie Hansen, to be registered proprietress of mining privileges in lieu of William Hansen, deceased. Adjourned to September 14th. W Noble, jun, and C Paget, jun, Surrender absolutely extended alluvial claim 610a.—Surrender accepted. J Holihan, residence site, Manuherikia River.—Adjourned. James and John Gartley, surrender -absolutely special alluvial claim 665 a. -• Adjourned to 22nd inst at Clyde. Coronation Dredging Co, surrender of special claim.—Surrender accepted. Clyde Dredging Co, D Bringans and Olrig D» edging Co, each applied fox extension of time for surveys of Special claims.—Granted in each case. civil sens. Arnold Nordmeyer v New River Molyneux Dredging Co; claim, £l4 17s 6d, for wages due.—Judgment by default for amount claimed. Thomas Madden v Same; claim, £9 19s 6d for wages.—Judgment for smount claimed. Andrew Anderson v Same; claim, 3s 6d, wages due.—Judgment by default for amount claimed. John Vaster v Same; claim. £lO Us 6d, wages due.—Judgment by default for amount claimed. Paul Abstein v Same; claim, £lO lis 6d, for wage?.—Judgment by desitit for ancunt slusrtft

John Simmonds v Same; claim £lO lis 6d, for wages.—Judgment by default for amount claimed. Each of the above judgments carried costs of court lis, and solicitor's fee 15* 6d. Mr J R Bartholomew appeared for plaintiff in each case. workmen's lien. Mr Bartholomew moved for an order authorising the sale of the New River Molyoeuz Go's dredge and claim to satisfy liens which had been registered by the foregoing plaintiffs against the property. His Worship agreed to make an order for the sale of the dredge and claim, the sale to be held at the Courthouse on Tuesday, September Bth, advertisement to be inserted in the local papers and in the " Daily Times."

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ALEXANDRA. Monday & Tuesday, August 17th and 18th, 1903. (Before F. J. Burgess, Esq, S.tf.) Breaches of the Licensing Act. Police v. Geddes. James Geddes, licensee of the Criterion Hotel, was charged with that he did on' June 21st, sell, liquor during prohibited hours. Mr J. R. Bartholomew appeared for defendant, who pleaded " not guilty." Sergeant Rogers conducted the case for the prosecution. Constable Dale said he entered defendant's hotel on Sunday, June 21st, about 5.25 p.m. In the sitting room off the bar he saw a man named O'Brien with a glass of beer in his hand. Two other men were sitting by the fire. When O'Brien saw witness he bent over and started to drink the beer. The licensee's wife said to witness that O'Brien was a boarder. This witness contradicted, saying O'Brien stayed at Hesson's. The door leading into the bar was open about a foot, and on entering the bar he saw two men standing there. Cross-examined: It was necessary to go through the bar to the proprietor's private sitting room and bedroom. O'Brien did not say he was a boarder, or that the drink was a gift. He knew the letter rack was in the bar, and that it was necessary to go through the bar to reach it. It was only a few minutes from meal time when he entered the hotel, and he knew the two men he saw in v the bar were in the habit of getting their meals at the hotel.

John O'Brien, in his evidence, said the drink he had in his hand when the constable entered was a gift from Mrs Geddes. He intended to have his tea there and stop there that night. Had engaged a bed in No 3 room for Saturday night, as he intended to leave Hesson's, but when he came back to the hotel it was locked up, and he then went back to Heeson's. He slept at Geddes's on the night of the 21st. He paid for both beds next day. Cross-examined: Did not pay for the drink, nor did he intend to. Had previously stayed at Geddes's hotel, and was in the habit of changing about He told the constable he was a boarder, William Hesson, boardinghouse keeper, said O'Brien had stayed at his house for about a fortnight. O'Brien paid him .£1 on the 20th, but said nothing about leaving. Cross-examined: Could not say for certain if O'Brien slept at his house on the night of the 21st. Eliza Hesson, housemaid at Hesson's boardinghouse, said O'Brien's bed had been slept in on the night of June 21st. No one else was supposed to go into the room. Cross-examined: Some one else may have slept in the bed. She did not see O'Brien go in or come out, but thought it was him owing to a habit he had of spitting about on the floor. Kate Jenkins, waitress at Hesson's, said that O'Brien slept at the boardinghouse on the Saturday night. Did not remember seeing him on Sunday night, but she supplied him with breakfast about 8 o'clock on the Monday morning. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Bartholomew, opened the case for the defence at some length, and contended that the information must be dismissed on two grounds—viz., that the drink was a gift, and that it was consumed by a boarder. Learned counsel quoted cases in support of his contentions. The fact of the bar being lighted was explained by the fact that the bar was the only means of access to the proprietor's private roomB; and regarding the two men in the bar, it would be shown they went there to get letters from the letter rack. Rachel Geddes, wife of defendant, said that about 5.25 p.m., on June 21st, she went through from her private room to the kitchen. Coming back through the sitting room, she saw O'Brien sitting on the table. O'Brien asked when tea would be ady, and after some further remarks 6he asked him if be would have a drink. He said he would and she gave him a glass of beer. Shortly alter the constable came in. One of the men in the bar had asked her if there were any letters for him, and she told him to go and see for himself. The letter rack was in the bar. It was customary to keep a lamp burning in during the cold weather to keep the room warm. O'Brien engaged a room on Saturday night, and witness understood he had occupied No 3 room. He slept there on the Sunday night, and paid for the beds next day. Witness told the constable that O'Brien was a boarder. Cross-examined '.Witness often asked customers to have a drink. Did not fet ©'««"*» ge to No. & NOttt but he

told witness be bad slept there on the Sunday night. He engaged the bed again after tea on Sunday night. Wm. Dickson said he was sitting near the fire in the same room as O'Brien on the evening of June 21st. Was waiting for his tea. He heard Mrs Geddes ask O'Brien if he would have a drink. Did not see the constable come in, nor hear anything more said. He had had no drink, nor did he see any one else have any, excepting O'Brien. Two other witnesses gave evidence to the effect that they had gone through into the bar to get letters from the rack, and stood talking for a few minutes before the constable appeared. They did not have any drink, .or did they want or ask for any. They had come into the hotel for their tea, as usual.

Case for the defence closed. His Worship said he would defer giving jmdgment till next day. On Tuesday morning, His Worship, in giving judgment, said the defence rested on two points—first, that the drink was served to a lodger; and, second, that the drink was a gift. He did not think that the evidence disclosed that O'Brien was a lodger within the meaning of the law, and 1 that if he was a lodger at all he became so after the consumption of the liquor. On the second count he did not think the assertion that the drink was a gift had been established, and he was satisfied that a transaction in the nature of a sale had taken place. The defendant would be convicted and fined £2, with costs, the conviction to be endorsed on the license. Police v. Gobkan. Francis Gorman, licensee of the Caledonian Hotel, was charged by the police with having, on Sunday, June 21st, (1) exposed liquor for sale during prohibited hours, and (2) with having allowed an unlawful game to be played on bis licensed premises. Mr C. C. Hutton appeared for defendant, who pleaded «Not Guilty.' It was decided to deal first with the charge of unlawfully exposing liquor for sale. Sergt. Rogers conducted the case for the police, and opened the case for the prosecution. Constable Dale, in his evidence, said that about 5.10 p.m. on Sunday, June 21st, he entered the Caledonian Hotel by the back door, which was open. The door leading into the bar was open about a foot. He saw two lamps burning, and there were a-lot of men—about 16—in the bar, He saw the barman and three others leaning over one part of the counter, apparently intent on some game, Saw the barman throw dice out of a box, then pick up the dice and box and put them on a shelf, The men, most of whom were neither travellers nor boarders, then left the house. He took possession of the dice-box and dice. Defendant made no excuse at the time. Cross-examined: He saw no money pass, nor did he see any drink on the counter, nor any signs that drinking had been going on, He would contradict any one who said there were no dice on the counter. He had a clear view of the bar. Frederick Gay, barman, said it was customary to let the men in the front sitting room go through the bar to the dining room. There was no other way except by going outside and round the house. It was a few minutes before tea-time when the constable came in. There is always a rush at meal times. Between 50 and 60 have their meals there on Sundays. He did not use the dice box, ncr did he see any dice used. He served three drinks to one of the men, who was a boarder. Considered he was justified in serving the boarder and his two guests. Cross-examined: There were no men in the bar when he opened the door leading from the sitting room. The doors previously were locked. Others besides boarders came in and were discussing the football match. He was not asked for any drinks, except the three he supplied to a boarder. He had instructions from his employer not to serve drinks, and he carried out these instructions.

Six others gave evidence, each stating that he did not see any dice thrown or used. No drinks were asked for or served, except three which were supplied to the order of a boarder in the hotel. Some of the witnesses corroborated Gay's evidence as to boarders being in the habit of going through the bar from the front sitting room to the dining room on Sundays, and there was often a rush at the doors leading from the bar to the dining room. The case for the prosecution closed. Mr Hutton said he did not propose to call any evidence for the defence. He submitted that the construction of the house involved the bar being kept open at times to let boarders through, and there was nothing to warrant the assumption that the bar had been kept open for an illegal purpose. As to the liquor that had been sold, this was supplied to a lodger, and was a perfectly legal. transaction. Learned counsel quoted a number of cases in support of his contentions. His Worship, in giving judgment, said he was of opinion that had the constable not entered, drinks would have been supplied. The presence of the people in the bar was not explained away by the fact that the bar was used as a passage between the sitting and dining rooms. Defendant would be convicted and fined £2 with costs, the conviction to be endorsed on the license. The charge of allowing an illegal game to be played was withdrawn by the Police. ALLIGED BREACH OF THE SLAUGHTEKIN6 ACT TAYLOR V. NIEMR. James Nieper was charged by S. M. Taylor, Stock Inspector, with that he did, on *m« BMfa tod tub, (*} kite* r£li to**

main on his licensed premises for more than 24 bours, (2) feed swine with unboiled offal, and (3) allow swine to wander within SOydc of bis slaughtering place Mr C 0 Hutton appeared for the Inspector and Mr J for the defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty. Farqubar Urquhart. rabbit agent, said that on June 29th he saw two pigs wandering outside defendant's pig-stye, feedinsr on raw offal He stepped the distance between the stye and the corner of the slaughtering yard, and made it 52yds. The pigs were 4 or 5 yards from the stye. On June 30th, in company with the Inspector, he watched the yards from the hill for about two hours. Saw a spring cart come from the killing yard towards the stye. They then went down to the yard and saw raw offal in the pig-stye. Cross-examined: Would contradict any one who said the offal was boiled. The killing pens and yards were in good order—there were no better yards in this district Saw raw offal in the boiler, under which a fire had been kindled. He denied that it was dark when he visited the yard on the 30th. 8 M Taylor, stock inspector, said the distance from the pig-stye to the slaughteryard comer was 54 yards. He measured it with a tape. On the 30tb June he was on the terrace with the previous witness for about two hours. Saw a cart go from the yard to the pig-stye. He also saw one pig outside. Afterwards measured the distance and found the pig was 12 yards from the stye, nearer the yard. Saw raw offal in the pig-stye. It was warm with animal heat, and bad apparently just been put in,. Also saw heap of offal outside.

Cross-examined:' The pens and killing yards were in very good order. It was the surroundings he'complained of. Did not say anything to Nieper's men at the time Did not consider it necessary to do so. Saw a boiler near the piggery with raw offal in it, and a fire under it. The case for the prosecution closed. Mr Bartholomew opened the case for the defence at considerable length and called James Nieper, who saidhe had given strict instructions to his men to always clean up the yards, and boil the pigs' food. He believed this was always done. On June 29th he fed the pigs himself with boiled meat from the boiler. It would be impossible to tell ten minutes after feeding the pigs whether the offal had been boiled or not. The piggery was well fenced in. He saw no pigs out The Inspector had not complained to him since the hearing of the last case Had told the inspector he would do anything he required about the yards. It was customary to boil all offal before giving it to the pigs. Edward Terry said he frequently passed by defendant's yard. Had not seen any pigs at large lately. Two or three times a week he noticed that a fire was burning under the copper. Benjamin Davis said he had measured the distance between the pigstye and the nearest point of the slaughterhouse, and had found it to be 65yds 2ft. Patrick Upillane, defendant's slaughter* man, said he always carried out his employer's instructions with regard to boiling the offal, and keeping the yards clean. Was at the yard when the Inspector called on the 30th. The latter made no complaint to witness. He remembered distinctly boiling the offal with which the pigs were fed that day. Saw no pigs out at that time. Herbert Henderson said on the date in question he was employed at Nieper's yard. Hefed the pigs on June 3Cth. on boiled meat and offal taken from the copper. No raw offal was put in the trough. Saw no pigs out. In giving judgment. His Worship said that probably a half-grown pig was outside the stye, as stated by the Inspector, but to secure a conviction "it must be shown that Nieper either knew, of the fact or allowed it to continue. The evidence showed that defendant bad taken precautions to keep his yards in good order. With regard to the distance, he was inclined to accept the statement of Mr Davis, who was an expert. With regard to the unboiled offal the evidence was contradictory; bnt be had no reason to doubt the evidence given by the witnesses for the defence. > The evidence was not clear enough to justify a conviction, and the charges would be dismissed.