MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 891, 3 May 1877, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHEISTCHUECH. Wednesday, Mat 2. (Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., E.M.) Civil Cases. —W. ,T. Simmonds, hotel keeper, v W. Vincent and C. P. Todhunter, trading as Vincent and Co., brewers. The plaintiff sued defendants to recover £IOO, being amount overcharged on 400 hhds. of ale at 5s per hhd. It appeared in evidence that plaintiff was a tenant of the defendants of premises known as the Warwick Hotel in Christchurch, and that the lease contained a covenant on the part of the plaintiff not to sell any colonial ale or porter unless purchased from the defendants, provided the defendants supplied the same at the fair current market price. The plaintiff, since the execution of the lease, had paid £4 5s per hhd. for all ale supplied by the defendant s, believing that to be the market price, but recently found that £4 was the price which he should have paid. At the hearing of the case a few weeks since, a large amount of evidence was taken, which established the fact that, £4 was the market price of ale in Christchurch, that being also the price charged by the defendants to all hotel-keepers who were not bound by agreement or lease to deal with the defendants exclusively. The defendants attempted to prove that £4 5s was mentioned to the plaintiff as the price ho would have to pay per hhd. before the lease -was executed. This however was denied by the defendant. The argument of the case stood over till to-day, when Mr Joynt, instructed by Mr Thomas, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Garrick, instructed by Mr W. H. Williams, for the defendants. Mr Garrick urged that a special agreement outside the lease had been entered into by which plaintiff was to pay £4 5s per hi id., and further that £4 5s was the price charged by the defendants to other bound houses, and should therefore be considered their market price. Mr Joynt argued that the proviso in the lease was explicit, and could not be varied or contradicted by a parol agreement, oven had such an agreement been proved. Also that Messrs Vincent and Co’s price could not be taken to be the fair market price, particularly as evidence had been given by other brewers in Christchurch that they charged £4 per hhd. to both bound and free houses. Further that evidence had been led which proved that the defendants had no two qualities of beer of the relative price of £4 and £4 ss. The Eesident Magistrate gave judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed and costs. D. McNamara v M. McNamara, claim £ll 3s ; Mr Loughnan for defendant; judgment for £7 17s and costs 19s. A Louissonv J. Morris, claim £49 18s 6d; judgment by default for amount claimed and costs 255. W. E. Smith v A. McNie, claim £3O ; Mr Loughnan for plaintiff, Mr Joynt for defendant; judgment for defendant with costs £5. (Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., E.M.) W. J. Fisher v W. Barndon, claim £3 11s lOd; judgment by default for amount claimed and costs 9s. E. Beattie vO. Haines, claim £lO ; judgment by default for amount claimed and costs 13s. M, Murphy v E. S. Bray, claim £l4 ; judgment by default for amount claimed and costs 19s. H. B. Sorenson v D. McKenzie, claim £3 6s 9d ; judgment by default for amount claimed and costs 9s. G. Plummer v N. Vale, possession of premises ; Mr Wynn Williams for plaintiff ; defendant to give up possession of premises within forty-eight hours (defendant allowed one week to remove hay), and costs £1 10s. W. Paddy vE. Davis, claim £6 4s ; Mr Slater for defendant; judgment for £3 5s and costs 13s. H. Legrange vS. Butcher; Mr Thomas for plaintiff, Mr Bamford for defendant ; judgment for £7 3s 5d and costs £2 Is. Thursday, May 3. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., E.M.] Drunk and Disorderly. —An inebriate; who appeared far the first time, was fined 10s; Elizabeth Howell -was fined ss, W. McCHskcy 10s and Is 6d cabhire, D. Buckley 5s ; Thos. King, for being drunk, using obscene language and breaking a pane of glass, was fined 20s, and Is 6d value of the glass. John Latimer was fined 20s. Travelling without a Tickett. —A case against Abraham King, for travelling on the Southern railway without a ticket, was dis- I missed. \ Stealing- prow the Person. Jane j McMahon was brought up charged with | having stolen £8 from J. Leonard, in the bar | of the Criterion Hotel. From the evidence, S it appeared he was sleeping at the time, being | somewhat under the influence of drink, when | accused stole the money, and gave the barman | four of the notes to keep for her. Accused 1 declined to make any remarks, and was sen- ! fenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard ; labor. Breach op Licensing Act. —Lucy Davcy, occupier of a brothel in the Hazeldcan road, was charged on summons with contravening the Licensing Act by selling drink in her house. It was proved that defendant had charged Is each for somenobblers supplied by j her, and his Worship imposed a fine of £lO, ] telling the woman that she was liable to a penalty of £SO.