RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Grey River Argus, Volume VI, Issue 434, 24 October 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before W. H. Revell, Esq., R.M.) Thursday, October 22. Vagrancy. — Catherine Collins was charged with vagrancy. It "was stated in evidence th^t^ she was a drunken and most disorderly prostitute, without any fixed place of abode or moans of support. She was about the streets at all hours of the night in company with drunken men, and many complaints about her conduct and language had been lodged with the police. Previous convictions were proved against the defendant, who was sentenced to two months' imprisonment in Hokitika gaol. W. H. Roughton, for having been drunk and disorderly, was fined ss, or 24 hours' imprisonment. Jane Anderson, for having neglected to keep a light burning over the door of her licensed house, the Court-house Hotel, was fined Is and costs. CIVIL CASES. Skoglund andPurcell v. Wm. Evans. — Claim of L 3 12s Id. Judgment by default with costs. Ellen F. Pearson v. Mrs Campbell, —r This was a claim for damages for the detention of a gold ring. It; was admitted that the ring was given until the plaintiff paid 10s for the use of a room, and ohe had not yet paid that amount. There "was a cross action for L 3 for one week's board, and LI for special attendance. The evidence in these cases could not be published. The Magistrate said that in the last case the contract for board and lodging had been for immoral purposes, and the plaintiff could not recover. The case would be dismissed with coats, ami he would take time to consider whether he would not take steps to have Mrs Campbell indicted for perjury. — In the first case he Avould order the ring to be restored, without payment of the 10s. Case dismissed with costs.

Friday, October 23. (Before W. H. Revell, Esq., R.M.) Lunacy. — William Carter, charged with lunacy, was remanded to Hokitika, to bo brought up there for medical examination. SLY GROG SELLING. Edward Fellows was charged with having kept and exposed for sale at his house, the Criterion Hotel, certain spirituous liquors, without having a license for t3ie same. Constable Keating stated that on the night of the 21st the door was shut, but he could see from the windows bottles of spirits exposed for sale, and a number of men drinking. He went in, and found the place fitted up as an ordinaiy bar, and in it two bottles of brandy, five of champagne, one cask of ale, four of claret, and several other bottles. The defendant was not present, but his father was, and could not produce a license when asked. Mr Guinness proved that defendant's license expired on the 15th of the present month. An application had been made for one, but the money had not been paid. The defendant said the bar door had not been opened since the license had expired, and he had given orders not to sell any more spirits in the house. The men who were in the bar were, with cine exception, boarders. Defendant's father, manager of the hotel, stated that the door. had not been opened since the license expired, and he had received orders from his son not to sell any spirits until he got the money to renew the license. He had not sold any spirits. The Magistrate, under the circumstances of the case, inflicted the mitigated penalty of £10, or two months' imorisonmsnt. Jane Campbell was charged with having sold, on the 22nd instant, spirituous liquors in her house, known as the Old Cove of Cork hotel, without a license. Ellen Pearson stated that on the previous day she, in company with Elizabeth Bartholomew and a drayman, went to the defendant's house and called for drink. There were five persons in the room, and they all had glasses of brandy, and she paid the defendant five shillings. In cross-exanrinatipn, the witness stated that she was plaintiff in a case against the defendant on the previous day, and when it was over she went to defendant's house. They were quarrelling, wlie^ s.'ie (witness) said, "Come, let us have some drinks, and settle it quietly." They went into another room, and got a bottle of brandy, which had been opened, and poured out three glasses, and took them into the, bedroom. Other two were poured out. When she asked for the drink?, she put two halfcrowns into the defendant's hand. She was not aware that the defendant's son went out for the drink ; but ho might have clone so without her seeing him. — Elizabeth Bartholomew, who was present, corroborated the previous witness's evidence. In cross-examination, she said she was the person who first asked defendant if she had any drink, and she said she could go and get some. The money was given to t'io defendant by the last witness. — The criyman, who was present for the purpose of removing luggage, saw three glasses of brandy brought in, but saw no mom y paid for them. One of the girls said she had paid five shillings for the drinks. He saw no bottles or liquor on the table when he entered the house ; and he was ten minutes there before he got the drink. — It was admitted that there Avas no license for the house. — For the defence, Frank Campbell, defendant's son, stated that on the previous day, when the two girls and the drayman came to the house, Miss Pearson asked his mother to have a drink. Defendant replied that she had none in the house, and Miss Pearson said send for it, giving her five shillings. He got the, money, and went to Coates' store, purchased a bottle of brandy, and put it on the table in the dining-room. He produced the receipt he got at the time for the bottle. In answer to the Magistrate, he said he had often, bought bottles of brandy before at Coates store,' and never asked for a receipt. On this occasion he was told by his mother to ask for a receipt. — Edward Hughes, a carpenter, who was working at the defend-' ant's house on the previous day, said he saw the boy Campbell leave the house a little past 2 o'clock, and return with either brandy or sherry. Defendant afterwards called him in and gave him a glass of brandy from a bottle which was standing on the table. He was not charged for it. — A short adjournment was made, until some rebutting evidence could be produced. — John Gavin, storeman to Mr Coates, said he remembered selling a bottle of brandy on the previous day to a boy named Campbell, and giving him a receipt for it. The price charged was five shillings. He could not remember whether he ever gave him a receipt for a bottle of

brandy befpre. The boy was in the store three times that day, but he could not remember the hour when the brandy was bought. It was after 1 o'clock. Mrs Campbell had an account at the store. — The Magistrate remarked that there was a great discrepancy in the evidence as to the actual time when the purchase of the bottle of brandy took place, but that did not affect the case materially. The law provided that in a case of this kind, where the money was paid for liquor before-hand, the actual quantity ordered nmst be brought into the house. Here five drinkß were asked for, but a whole bottle of i brandy was brought in. There was no doubt that a breach of the law had been ' committed, and this was only a cloak set up. The defendant would be convicted, and fined in the full penalty of £00 and costs.