Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

DISTRICT COURT,

Thursday, August 31. ' (Before .EJis Honor, Judge^Vard.) BEAUCHAMP, APPELLANT, V. REGINA, RESPONDENT. ' ' This was an appeaL case, against a decision of Mr Warden Revell, as to whether the appellant, who was a surveyor'carrying on business on the Gold r Fields, came within the irieaning of the business license section of the. Gold Fields Rules and Regulations, Mr Warden Re veU haying v decided that the appellant did come within the meaning of the Act. r , Messrs Guinness r Perkius, and Newton for appellant, Mr Harvey, for respondent. Mr Harvey contended that the appellant did carry on the business of surveyor,' and which was in direct contravention of the Act. Mr Guinness urged that the clause under which the conviction was made only contemplated the hawking and vending of goods and chattels. There was nothirip in the clause which brought any professional man under its provisions. Mr Harvey said if surveying was nob a business within the meaning of .the Act, then there were all sort 3of professions' which might come under it._ . _.. ... His Honor thought that : ..a surveyor; could hardly come under the clause as a' vendor or hawker of goods and chattels. Mr Harvey would refer His Honor to the Gold Fields Act of 1862. In > compiling the new Act from thtj oWLoue, a live had evidently been left put r ..;frpm one word "any" to- another line "ending with the word "any," which would put 'a; different; complexion on the case. t j?j... His Honor said that if tlie'Act of 1862, was in force, he might have had some' doubts as to whether appellant came withirithe meaning of it, but as the clause now stood, he had none. He supposed' that 'the line had been deliberately left out, and therefore he must take it as it appeared. He could not say whether it was a printer's typographical omission or not, but he must take it that the Legislature, in its wisdom; had; piirpdsely' omitted the line. The appeal would be allowed, without costs. [A miningappeal case from the Warden's Court, Greymouth, was then taken, but as it was not finished when the ' Court rose last evening, we withhold our report.]

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GRA18710901.2.11

Bibliographic details

Grey River Argus, Volume XI, Issue 967, 1 September 1871, Page 2

Word Count
364

DISTRICT COURT, Grey River Argus, Volume XI, Issue 967, 1 September 1871, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT, Grey River Argus, Volume XI, Issue 967, 1 September 1871, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert