RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2568, 11 May 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R. M.) J. Beadle v. Charles King.—Thc’applicant, a carpenter, asked the Court to require the defendant to enter into recognisances to keep the peace, as it was averred that ho had be n guilty of threatening and abusive language. The expressions complained of as used by defendant M'cro that he was a “rascal,” “a d d rascal,”and so on. It was a family brawl, arising out of a dispute about children, and defendant was lined 23. Cd. ODSTKUCTIXO A RKVUXUE 01’PICKS, IN TIIK JiXlit’UTlON OF III.S DUTY Dumb v. 11. Hume.—The defendant is assistant to Messrs. Hogg and Hutton, and was charged with preventing complainant examining their premises so as to ascertain whether any breach of the Licensing Ordinance had been committed. According to the evidence of the complainant, he stated hi? object to the defendant, who first refused

to allow him to examine the premises, and when, having shewed him his authority, he persisted in going over them, the defendant interfered to prevent him. Mr. Barton defended. One of the partners, Hutton, said he refused to allow Lumb to go over the premises, and stated that he was in liquor when he called. This was denied by the prosecutor, who stated he had not tasted liquor during the day. Mr. Barton held that the document produced as an authority was not suillcicut to justify the officer making search. A witness, named Stevenson, said he was present in the shop when he saw Lnmh put a pap r in Hutton’s hands. Being deaf he did not hear what passed, but saw after some conversation, Lumb looked Hushed in the face. His Worship recommended that Lumb should got a proper authority, signed by the Superintendent, in terms of the Act, before any further informations were laid ; and secondly, there was no evidence that the defendant acted under directi m or authority of the holder of the botttlc license. The case was dismissed.