RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Dunstan Times, Issue 420, 6 May 1870, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

(Before Vincent Pyke, Esq, R.M.) Alexandra, May 2. Police v. Tunnell —Breach of Licensing Ordinance. Three witnesses were called for the prosecution, the whole of whom stated that th”y were playing cards in the accused's place on the night of 26th April, but that they did not play for drinks, but for an oyster supper, - One of the witnesses stated that after the supper he felt poorly, and the accused said he wOuid give him some whisky, and* told .him at the suna time that he would not take payment as he had no license, but that he had that day lodged application for a license. Each witness swore that there was not drink until after supper, and that was brought in on account of one of them feeling poorly, and that no money was paid for drink, neither did they expect to pay. This closed the case for the prosecution. The accused gave evidence to the effect that he sold no drink, but gave one of the witnesses some whisky as he complained of being unwell from eating the oysters. He brought in half a bottle of whisky ’and jplaeed it on the table and believed each took a drink, but did not charge for it nor had any intention of doing so. Told them so at the time . also informed them that he" ;had that dayapplied for a retail license. His Worship considered there was no case proved. Case dismissed. Kett v. Feraud.—Claim for £S 6s. Sd. as money paid by plaintiff for defendant into the Bank of New Zealand, Alexandra. Mr. Brough for plaintiff, Mr. Chappie for defendant. This was an adjourned case from Monday last. The facts of the case were that plaintiff and defendant, with others, were in partner, ship (Frenchman’s Claim), and at the last settling up the plaintiff paid the amonn t claimed for defendant as his share to square the accounts. It was argued for the defence that it was a partnership account, and that his Worship had no jurisdiction. Ilis Worship reserved judgment until today, when he state! that it was clearly a partnership account and that he had no jurisdiction. Verdict accordingly. Rivers v. Whice.—Claim ,61 - L for goods sold and delivered. Settled out of Court. WARDEN’S COURT. Mr. Brough, on behalf of Kett and C<\, applied for judgment to be entered up in a ease (A. Wood and Co. v. Galvin) for caucellationof resiJencearea, heard somemonths since (Kett and Co. being the purchasers of A. Wood and Co.’s claim, &o. His Worship said that if notice was given the Court and Galvin he wuirid hear it next Court day. Several applications for tail-races and extended claims were dealt with from Coal Creek. Two tail-races, Butcher’s Gully; an extended claim of six acres on Golden Beach, opposite the coal pit ; and one application for an agricultural lease at Bald Hill Flat.