Feildiog S.M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 45, 21 August 1896, Page 2

Feildiog S.M. Court.

THIS DAY. (Before R. L. Stanford, S.M.) R. J. Thompson v. John Sunnex ; claim 7s 3d. Mr Cathro for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 13s au«l solicitor's fee 15s 6d. W. S. Watts v Jas. Malcolm ; claim M7s 6d. Mr Reade for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs ss. John Glover v Chas. Neilson ; claim £7 14. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 10s. John Glover v Harry Hinks ; claim £1. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 9s. Thos. Moffatt v Thos. Morgan ; claim £8 Is 6d. Mr Sandilands fur plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 20s. H. L. Jackson vA. S. Green ; claim £1 ss. Mr Reade for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 10s. H. L. Jackson vA. Perrin ; daitn 16s 6d. Mr Reade for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs ss. Palmer and Co. vA. Bedford ; claim £•3 l:ss sd. Mr Reade for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs ss, solicitor's fco ss. A. Eade v Mrs Edward Turner ; claim £1 2s. Judgment for amouut claimed with costs ss. Patrick Mclllvoy, licensee of the Pcm- « berton Hotel , was charged on the information of the police with having on Sunday July 12, permitted drunkenness and riotous couduct on his premises. Constable Tuohy conducted tbe case for the prosecution and Mr Catbro ap pearcd for the defeuce. Thos. McKcan deposed : At about 7 o'clock ou the evening of July 12 saw P. Mclllroy in the Pemberton Hotel ; was in the tap room with Hurley, Burke, Clcarstrom, J. Soles, G. Page, and P. English ; remained about two hours on tbe premises ; did not see any liquor served or the men drinking ; several of the men were drunk, viz., English, Hurley, Clcarstrom and Burke ; there was a lot of row going on ; it was rnostty wrangliog ; did not know at what time anj - of the men went to tbe hotel ; the licensee was in tbe room and about the house all the time witness was there ; did not drink himself. Cross examined : Had no hesitation in saying the men were drunk ; tbe row was practically over when witness went iuto tbe hotel ; McJllroy was trying to I pacify tbe men. Re examined : There was no other place at Raugiwabia, excepting the Pcmbsrton Hotel, where tbe men could get drink. D. Hurley deposed : On Sunday, July 12, went to the Pemberton Hotel ; went in by the hack door ; stopped in tbe i hotel all night ; was sober when he went to tbo hotel, where he met a man named Burke, who told witness he had bought a bottle of whiskey on Saturday night both witness and Burke got drunk by drinking this whiskey ; drank the whiskey in tbe tap room ; was drunk at about 12.H0 and did not remember anything after that ; Mclllroy did not give witness any liquor. Tbos. Moffat deposed : Was a storekeeper and boardiughouse-keeper residing at Rangiwabia ; at 1 o'clock ou Sunday morning July 12, got up, having heard a noise, which he then ascertained was in tbe hotel ; the noise sounded as though they were knocking things about or fighting ; men were going in and out of the hotel all day on Sunday ; some of the men appeared to be drunk. Cross-examined : Had no wish to interfere with Mr Mclllroy ; complained to Constable Tuohy of the conduct of tbe hotel ; was not in the hotel on the day in question. Mr Cathro asked that the case be dismissed on the grounds that the information was bad, as it included two offences, viz., that of permitting drunkenness, and riotous behaviour on his premises. Agaan, o» the merits of tbe case, there was no evidence that there was any liquor sold on the premises on the day in question, or that the bar was open. The mere fact of men being under the influence of liquor was not sufficient evidence, and he argued the the conduct of the men was not riotous. Tbe S.M. held that the object of the Act was to protect the public, and it should be read that it does not matter how or where a man gets the liquor the licensee of an hotel should turn him out immediately if drunk. He held there was a case to answer. | The case for the defence was adjourned until later in the day.] A Prohibition order was granted against S. S. Ratliff, to have effect to all licensed premises between the Otaki and Rangitikei rivers. John G. Campbell y. John Taylor ; claim £13 us. Mr Sandilands, instructed by Mr Sandeman, appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Richmond for the defence. This was a claim for the recovery of £12 10s and costs, and arose gut of a transaction in which S. Stokes leased a property at Birmingham from plaintiff, to whom he (Stokes) owed the amount of claim for rent. Defendant in this action had a bill of sale over certain property in the premises leased by Stokes. It was alleged that Mr Sandeman, as agent for the plaintiff, had distrained for rent, and that subsesequently the goods were seized by the bailiff under instructions from solicitors for the defendant. £. Sandeman deposed to distraining the goods under tbe bill of sale for rent, on behalf of the landlord, and that Hodges seized the articles by instruction from Messrs Goodbehere and Richmond ; witness told Hodges not to touch the goods as they had been distrained, but he took no notice and took them away. E. Vitskey deposed that he was put into the premises (occupied by S. Stokes) as bailiff ; went into the shop and signed the inventory of the goods seized ; Hodges went into the shop after witness had taken possession and took away the goods seized by witness. S. Stokes gave corroborative evidence, and stated that he bad no information from Taylor as to what had been done with the goods seized, which witness valued at about £30. John Taylor deposed to the goods being sold and realising about £20. Mr Richmond asked for a non-suit, arguing that Mr Sandeman was not an agent under the meaning of the Act, as he had no written authority ; that plaintiff's distraint was illegal it having been for three weeks rent too much ; and that one of the sewing machines seized by the landlord's agent was in use at the time of the seizure. Mr Sandilands replied that as it was legal to seize for rent from week to week as it became doe, there was no necessity to wait for 21 days. The S.M. ruled that an excess of distraint vitiates tbe distraint. Mr Sandilands further argued that tbe original distraint was only excessive so far that it was for one week's rent (12/6) too much the rent for the last week not being due until the evening of the distraint, and that the balance was in arrear and justly due. After argument His Worship decided to reserve judgment on tbia point until next Court day, and the case was accordingly adjourned. (Left Sitting.)