RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Grey River Argus, Volume IX, Issue 686, 11 June 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Thorsday, June 9. (Before W. H. Re veil, .Esq., 8.M.) Sly Grog-Selling. — Margaret Fyfe was charged, on the information of Constable Keating, with selling spirituous liquors in a house known as the Edinburgh Castle, on the 30th ultimo. Mr Guinness appeared for the defendant) admitted the charge, and pleaded for a mitigation of the penalty.— Alfred Rogers was called, and gave evidence that he was ix the Edinburgh Castle on the night in question. He had some drinks there that night along with ethers, but saw no money paid for them. No further evidence was called, and the defehdant was fined L3O ; and costs. CIVIL JCASES. Brown y. Christy.— Claim of L 5 10s, for repairing a coal-boat. The defence was that the boat no«v leaked as badly as e/er. Judgment for L 4 JBs 6d, and costs. Joyce v. M'Gregor. — Verdict for plaintiff for LI 5s 6d, with costs. Simmons v. Andrews.— Claim for L 5 ss, for work performed in the erection of a chimney at the house of the defendant. The particulars of the amount were admitted ; but the defence was, that Mr Andrews was not personally responsible — that the work was done for the Government, and ought to be charged to them, as -the house was Government property. The plaintiff stated that, in January last, defendant told him to do certain work to a chimney at his house. He made no mention of the work being done for the Government at the time. Ho had previously done similar work for Mr Andrews, and had been paid by him. The entries in his day-book wore made to Mr Andrews ; all the Government orders were entered in a separate book, When he presented the bill, .defendant said he did not think he would get it from the Government, but he would try, Afterwards he presented the bill and defendant said, he had not received the amount from the Government. Plaintiff said, had he known it was for the Government, he would not have done the work for 100 per cent, more, in consequence of the difficulty of obtaining payment.— James T. Birch, who did bricklayer's work to the chimney at the samp time, stated that he looked to Mr Andrews for payment, and would not have taken a 30s;jpb for the Government, and lie out of the money for four months. Defendant referred him back to Simmons, who was very indignant.—^or the defence, .Mr Andrews said he resided in a house provided for him by the Government, When the job was given to plaintiff, he told himj " Mind you don't charge me with this ; it is a Government job, and you must not charge too much for it." Plaintiff replied that the Government could afford to pay for it, When plaintiff

called for payment he appeared satisfied I when he was told it was a Government ] account. Part of the account had been ' sent to the Government, and if it were disallowed he would pay the amount himself. The chimney was authorised to bo repaired by the County Engineer, or Mr Hoos, or Mr Lahman, a few days before . » the work was done. If the plaintiff had said to him that he would not take a job for the Government, he would not have given him the contract. From his position as Collector of Customs, under the Civil Service regulations he bad authority to keep the public buildings in his charge in a proper. state of repair, and to expend L 5 in any case of emergency, Mr Perkios addressed the Bencb for the defendant, and Mr Guinness for the plaintiff. The Magistrate said the question was simply whether Mr Andrews acted in his capacity of Collector of Customs, and represented that the order was for and on behalf of the Government at the time, and that he had the requisite authority to give the order, for any Government officer might give orders for work for which he had no authority, but it was necessary that he should hold an express authority before he could bind the Government to pay for the work done. A point had been raised that, under the Civil Service regulations, Mr Andrews had power to bind the Government to the extent of L 5. So far as he remembered these regulations, a Government officer was responsible for the house in his charge, that it was not allowed to go out of repair; but that in doing so it was his duty to apply to the Government and point out that such and J such a work was necessary, and obtain the requisite authority. The County regulations required that all repairs to buildings should be done by requisition. No written authority had been produced in the case, and the defendant had been unable to say who gave him authority. On the whole, no sufficient authority had been shown by the defendant that the work had been entered into for and on behalf of the County, therefore judgment would be for the plaintiff, with costs, jfer

Fkiday, June 10. (Before W. H. Revell, Esq., R.M.) Libel. — The adjourned charge of libel — Kilgourv. Dale — was proceeded with. Mr Perkins appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Newton for the defence. James . Payne said ; I know the defendant, and thai Le was charged wiih publishing a libel against Mr Kilgour. I remember having a conversation with him about it on the morning of the first hearing of this case, at the corner of Boundary street. I * spoke to him about the absurdity of writing the Kbel, when he asked me to wait until the case was heard, and he would prove it, or words to that effect. He said that several persons in town had spoken to him abont these reports respecting Mr Kilgour, and that they had been current for some time. I cannot remember the defendant acknowledging that he wrote the libel. On several occasions since he has regretted to me that the paper was ever written ; but I cannot remember his ever admitting that he wrote it. He never denied having written it. By Mr Newton: Defendant expressed regret that these reports had- - been spread, and that this publication had been made. By Mr Perkins : I understand the defendant to mean the publication he himself had made. This was the case for the prosecution. The defendant, having been cautioned in the usual way, replied, " Under advice I have nothing to say." He was then committed to take his trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court, at Hokitika, on the 12th September. The same bail was accepted as fcrmerly. ■ ■ •.■'■■•"'