AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 4, Issue 396, 21 May 1880, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, May 18. (Before J. Aylmer, Esq., E.M., and H. Fenton, Esq., J.P.) ILLICIT SALE OF GROG. Joseph McLean, captain of the s.s. Akaroa, waa charged by Sergeant Willis with selling grog on board the 8.8. Akaroa on the 26th day of March, he not having a license Defendant pleaded not guilty. John Gunning, being sworn, stated that he remembered the day specified, and that he had a drink on board the steamer, for ■which he had paid. That he had been served the drink by the steward, and had seen that party serving other drinks. Robert McLoy, being called, said he had a glass of brandy on the steamer on the same day, but he had not paid for it. In reply to Sergeant Willis, he stated that he had not informed the police of the fact. Defendant being sworn, stated that he was not aware that grog- was sold on his vessel. He had given strict orders some eighteen months or two years back that grog should not be sold, and he did not know that that order had been disobeyed. He had never seen any sold. Sergeant Willis remarked that the defendant could not have, had a license since 1873, as up to that date it had been the duty of the Clerk of the Resident Magistrate's Court to issue licenses, and after

that it had been the place of the Customs, and that defendant had never even applied to the Customs officer for a license. The Bench decided under the circumstances Jto inflict a fine of £2, and costs amounting to .£5 14s od, or in default forty days imprisonment. The fine was paid. H. Fenton, Esq., here left the bench. J. D. GABWOOD V. 11. BROUGII. This was a judgment summons. The plaintiff observed that it would not be necessary for him to give any evidence, as the defendant was a bankrupt. He would, however, draw the attention of the Bench to what he considered the contempt of Court shown by the defendant in not appearing as desired by the judgment summons. He thought a punishment should be inflicted for such an offence. He noticed that it was getting quite a common affair for defendants not to appear in response to judgment summonses. The Bench, quoting from the Act, stated that personal appearance was not absolutely necessary. The only thing was that in the case of the absence of the defendant the Bench could make any order the plaintiff might ask for. In this case, as no evidence of defendant's bankruptcy had been laid before the Bench, he would take a day to consider what would be the best course to adopt in the matter. LOUIS LEVAILLANT V. JAMKS BELL. Claim £1, for damage done by defendant's dogs to plaintiff's sheep. Plaintiff stated that defendant's dogs had worried two of his sheep ; that he had been ill in bed at the time, but that his wife had got up at 3.30 a.m, to drive them away. Mary Levaillant stated that she had found plaintiff's dogs worrying her sheep ; that they had killed one which she knew weighed over 120 lbs, and that she valued it at 20s. Judgment was given for 15s and costs. The Court then adjourned.