RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.
This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. Godso v. Cornelius. —This case had been before the Court ou Monday. It was a summons to the defendant to show why he had not satisfied a judgment of the Court. As an answer the defendant pleaded a cer- ; tificate in insolvency.—Mr Stewart appeared on behalf of Godso, and urged that the certificate Could not be put in as an answer to a fraud summons, as it only required him to state the means at his command of satisfying the judgment.—The case was adjourned to° Friday to hear counsel on the opposite side. M'Corkendale v. Douglass.— L2, for stone supplied. This case had been adjourned for additional evidence. Judgment for plaintiff for the amount, with costs. Sherwin v. Robinson. —Ll 9s, a claim for rent. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount, with costs. Hancock v. Romer. —L2 4s, for hoard. Judgment by default for plaintiff for the amount, with costs. Baxter and Findlay v. MTutyre.— Mr Strode delivered the judgment of the Bench, which was to the following effect:—When he (Mr Strode) granted the rehearing, he stated his opinion to be in favor of Mr Stout’s contention, but having since gone more fully into the whole matter, he had seen fit to modify the opinion he then expressed. The Bench were of opinion that sec. 12, 24, Geo. 11, ch. 40, commonly called the Tippling Act—was applicable to the circumstances of the Colony—as it was enacted to restrain “the immoderate drinking of spirituous liquors ” and “ to promote the health and morals of the people” and moreover had been generally held to be so applicable from the foundation of the colony to the present time. But as it was one of those laws which the Provincial Legislature had power to repeal the Bench were called upon to determine—lst, whether the 52nd section of the Otago Licensing Ordinance, 1864, did repeal it. and secondly, if it did, whether the repeal of the Ordinance of xSG4 by the Licensing Ordinance of 1865 revived it. For reasons which were stated at great length they came to the conclusion :—First : Tha'i the 12th section of the Tippling Act was not in anywise repealed by the Licensing Ordinance of 1864. Secondly : If it were in anywise repealed, the repeal affected only the holders of general licenses under that Ordinance, and their customers as such. Thirdly: There being now subsisting no general licenses issued under the Ordinance of 1864, there are now no persons exempt from the operation of the Act. Suchjbeiug their decision, it was unnecessary to answer the question whether the Tippling Act, had it been repealed by the Ordinance of 1834, would have beeu revived by the repeal of that Ordinance; but as it had been raised, and considered by the Bench, they might say Lad their decision with respect to the first question been the other way, they would have said that the Act had not been revived by the repeal of the repealing Ordinance. Judgment, as in the first hearing, for plaintiff for the amount paid into Court.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18720424.2.9
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Evening Star, Issue 2864, 24 April 1872, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
522RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Evening Star, Issue 2864, 24 April 1872, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.