RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S, COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3567, 29 July 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S, COURT.

Wednesday, July 29. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.)

Drunkknne s —-Henry O’Kane was fined 20s, with the alternative of three days’ imprisonment ; Louisa O’Brien, a similar pepenalty, with the option of fourteen days’ imprisonment; Henry Cross, who pleaded that he had been to an evening party, had probably taken a glass, and was returning home when arrested, 10s, or three days’. Disorderly I odoer —Rllen O’Leary was charged with being drunk iu Stuart street at one o’cb ck this mor dug, and with breaking a window of the value of I4s in tho house of '••lra Hogg—Pri oner said that if she was drunk she had got tho drink in proBocutrix’s house Eliza Hgg said that she kept a registry office in Stuart street Prisoner had been hoarding with her. .She had been out shopping all tho previous day, and when she returned home was told by her daughter that prisoner had sent out for drink. She afterwards had prisoner ejected from the house.—Constable Hattie ejected prisoner from last witness’s house early this morning. She then wilfully put her arm through the window, and broke it. —Prisoner: It’s a great shame for a Government man, and one paid by the Government, to take an oath by kissing the Bible, and then tell a lie. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. (Laughter.) As she here became unusually boisterous, challenging both prosecutrix and the constable, bis Worship ordered the police to remove her, and bring her up again, when ha would commit her for a longer period.— When brought up at a later period prisoner was so abusive that his Worship had to threaten to commit her to gaol for a month. On the charge of drunkenness she was fined 20s, with the option of three days’ imprison-

meat; fcr breaking the window, 20a, or a week. CIVIL CASES. James Cotton v. Thomas M ‘Lean.—Claim L 3 10s, for drinks supplied, and 5s for meals provided.—Mr Bathgate, for defendant, paid the latter amount into Court, and pleaded that moneys for drink were not recoverable unless the quantity supplied at each time was of the value of 20s. His Worship said there was no doubt that it was a shabby defence, A man who went and got drink from another, and then took advantage of the Act, unis; be a mean fellow.—Witness : He not only did so himself, but gave it to others.—(Laughter.) His Worship pointed out that the intention of the law was to prohibit any person giving drink on credit. No one could recover for drink sold when under the value of 20s.—Plaintiff said he was aware of this. Defendant was working opposite his hotel, and as did not always have ready money in his pocket, he supplied him with the liquor. He had only brought the action to expose defendant.— The case was dismissed.

>ame v. Carroll.—Claim LI 16s, for driftk supplied.—Judgment was given for defendant, who failed to appear, with costs. Same v. Atkins.—Claim L 3 11s 6d, for drinks supplied.—Mr Howorth for defendant, pleaded a similar defence as to that in M'Lean s case.—His Worship said be considered it a good sound law, and wished it could be extended a little further so that no one could recover where the debts for drink were under L 5 or LlO. If such were done it would cause the pub icans to be more careful as to whom they trusted.—Judgment was given for defendant.

Edmond v. M ‘Donald. —Claim LSO, for trespass done to plaintiffs land at Maungatua by defendant’s cattle destroying the grass and fences; and a further claim of 19, fm defendant’s wrongfully converting a watercourse and causing it to oveiflowonto de feudant’s land.—Mr Stewart for plaintiff, and Mr Bathgate for defendant, who pleaded a general denial.—The- e was a cross-action, in which M‘Donald claimed to recover LIGO for injuries by trespass, damages to a field glass, and injuries through Edmond diverting a water-course.—The case had not concluded when we wont to press. Plaintiff was iu the box for the gieater portion of the day; Mr Bathgate’s cross-examination extending over a couple of hours.