RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3960, 3 November 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Wednesday, November 3. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) An Explanation—Before commencing the ordinary business of the Court his Worship expressed a desire to make a few remarks. That morning he had observed in one of the daily papers (the 'Times') what was a misapprehension of the grounds on which his decision had been come to in Robertson v. de Montalk. It appeared to him that anyone reading the article would come to the conclusion that he had decided the case fiom some personal ideas or feelmgs or discretion of his own. The article said: -" We do not know whether our worty magistrate takes tot or not at nights; he may be a rigid Good Templar for all we Imow; but we think he is imposing his own opinion or taste upon otheis to an entirely unwarrantable ex tent, when he lays it down for the guidance of all grocers that, if a household consumes as much as a bottle and a half of spirits in one week, the tradesman who supplies it on crrdit cannot recover the amount.'' In another place they plainly say that the judgment was reduced on account of the excessive quantity of drink charged in this account. Now he need not say of the Bar that they knew very well tlm grounds upon the judgment rested, and he presumed everyone in the trade in this town a so knew it; so he need not answer the charge of personal unfairness implied against him, nor was this the proper place to reply to those attacks. While he piesided over that Court ho trusted he might not be biassed by any personal feeling or sentiment ; his sola object was to ascertain what was the law, and though -.,t time 3 he might be mistaken hi its interpretation, on this point it was almost impossible for any judge to take any other view than that which he had always observed here. He had not struck out the whiskey on account of its excessive quantity, for had there on'y been one bottle instead of thirty-four his decision would have been the same. He then quoted " The Tippling Act,' chap. 24, George H, to show that on and after July 1, 1751, any person could not recover or maintain any nction, cause, or suit, whether in law or equity, for any account of spirituous liquors, unless such should have been sold in quantities of the value of at least 20s at one time, and stated that that was the solo ground on which Li> judgment hid been forme*i. Then, it would be observed, that he was in doubt as to whether ale or beer was included in the account, and, having i hat doubt, he had given the trader or merchant the benefit of it, although he believed that in some cases the Act had been held to include ale and beer. He concluded by expressing his surprise that any paper could so mislead the public by showing such a want of knowledge of common law as the one to which ho had referred. John M'Neill v. W. Parry.-Claim L 4 on a judgment summons. Defendant was ordered to pay 10s per week, in default fourteen davs' imprisonment. James Kiely v. Edward M'Gfr«;,'or.—Vr E. Cook for plaintiff.—This was a judgment summons on an acceptance for L2D 12s.—His Worship adjourned the case for a mouth to enable a settlement to be como to. Judgment was given by default in the following cases, with costs :—>£. J. Walter v. W.U. White, potter, LB7 4s lid, on a dishonored bill ol exchange; M'Laren v. Ebenezer Corley, L 8 9s 3d, groceries supplied.