RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1087, 22 January 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA.

Thursday, January 18. (Before 0. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M.) John Gagliardi was charged with selling apiritous liquors without a license a Half-Ounce, on Bth December, 1871 Constable Dorris said he went to defen dant's house on the day named, and paic about the license; i&d'fiVsaiJ W^fifefAffli time to run. He afterwards discoverec this to be a falsehood, and that the de fendant was trying to take advantage o an error in the date of the license he ha< exposed in his bar, which expired or 13th October last. He called on deferdan again, and received L 5 from him oi account of the license fee, and the balance Ll2, was to be paid in a few days. Hi departed from the usual practice in taking this^ deposit for the license, instead o receiving the whole fee, on account of th< serious illness of the defendant's wife He went to defendant again on the Is January, and he ([the defendant) said h< had changed his nind, and did not meat to take out a lie ■ lse. He then summonec him. He was une'er tl c impression th< defendant had. a l'cense when he paid foi drinks at the defendant's house. In cross examination by Mr Staite, for the defen dant, the witness said he sold the defen< dant's house under a distress warrant, ii a civil action, since he laid the informa< tion, and that he retained the L 5 still, and at one time he had serious intentions of . annexing it, to satisfy the distress warrant. Mr Staite, for the defendant) applied for a dismissal on, the ground that, as the constable had taken a portion of the license fee, the balance, Ll2, should be sued for civilly as a debt due to the Provincial Government, and further, thai the offence, if any, had been condoned by the constable taking part of the license fee. He also urged that the defendant always held a license, and that it was solely his inability to pay, through sickness in his family, that prevented him from being licensed now. The Magistrate overruled the point raised, and said that the clerical error in the license was no excuse for the defendant's breaking the law. Being a licensed publican he should know the law affecting his business, and ignorance of it was no excuse. His attempt to deceive the constable about the license showed that the defendant was aware of the illegality of his proceedings. The constable acted improperly in taking a portion of the license fee, and it was most objectionable that constables should presume to take such responsibility on themselves. Such a course must not again be adopted, and it would be taken for granted that in future the informations in cases such as the present one would be laid at the time the offence was com» mitted. The defendant would be fined Lls, or in default of payment of the fine, one month's imprisonment. J. D. Pinkerton v. Martin Parker. — The defendant was charged with using abusivo and insulting language towards the complainant. It was stated that as the defendant had offered to contribute a guinea to the funds of the Greymoutb Bospital, the complainant withdrew the jharge. .'..;" CIVIL CASBS. George Nelson v. Patrick Crogan.— This was an action to recover L 5 13s, the value of a riding saddle, "'Wd' LI O special damages for illegal detention. ■ The plaintiff, a saddler and harness-maker, at Ahaura, said the saddle in dispute was left at his shop in February, 1870, by Mr: Joseph Graham. A butcher, from Moonlight Creek, named Olds, claimed the saddle as his property, and sued him (the witness) for it. In the meantime Graham said the saddle was Crogan's, and took it away from the witness, and an order was made that the saddle should be given up to Olds within three days, or the witness

would have to, pay L 3, with L2,l§b ■ jjpsts, and expenses. He was unable to Return' the saddle, and consequently hei had- to' pay Olds the amountjof his verdic.t, arid he now sued the defendant fordfc" He : afterwards "saw the saddle in thedefen-dant's-:stables f at Greymouth, and demanded it, but he got no decided answer from Orogan. He did not take any further steps in the matter at the time, because there were accounts between Crogan and himself, winch were since squared, as far as Crogan was concerned. jsaid. he was present at Crogan's stables at Greymouth, when Me plaihtifiP'^ointed out the saddle in dispute to the defendant, and asked for' it. The witness detailed' the conversation which took^ place between Nelson and Crogan ; arid in answer to' Mr Guinness, he said that " he could not see any reason why the defendant arid himself (the witness) should be bad' friends." Mr Guinness to the witness : Have you ever promised to do Crogan a good turn if you could ? Witness : No ; I never make any rash promises of the kind v if I. am aware of it. Mr Guinness : Well, have' you ever threatened to. dp ..him a bad turn 1 Witness : No ; I would just as soon do him. a good trim as a bad one, provided it cost me no money." This witness's cross-ex-amination finished here. J ohri Tucker said he heardan altercation between the plaintiff and defendant about the saddle at Greymouth, but the' evidence' was riot material. The: further hearing of; the case was adjourned to the. 25th January. Mr Staite, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Guinness for the defendant. 11 ■ Robert Lynch v. ; John Dpolan.— A claim of LI 8, made vp 1 as follows -—The plaintiff had a weatherboarded house at the foot of Duffer Creek, near the defendant's farmland being about to 'shift to the Little Grey he offered his for sale to the defendant, and the plaintiff alleged that a bargain was made that the house should become the property of .the defendant for LI 5. ' He also sold the defendant a featherbed for L 3, and he received L 2 as part payment. The defendant came to the plaintiff afterwards, at the Little Grey Junction, and said he could not complete the purchase of the house. The defendant ' denied ever buying the house, but he admitted purchasing the bed. The defendant said he merely took charge of the defendant's house, and promised to sell it for him il he could. He was unable to dp so, and he told the plaintiff so. It appeared from the rest of the evidence that the sale oi the bed and the bargain .about the house were separate transactions, and the plaintiff admitted that the L 2 were paid as part payment for the bed. The contract about, the house being over LlO, the law requires that such contracts are not binding if a deposit be 'not "paid at the time ol sale, or if. the parties do not bind .themselves, by a written agreement./,. Neither was done in this case, and the plairitifl was nonsuited with costs. . J Verdicts with coots were given for the plaintiffs in the following cases:— J. F. Johnston v. Lubere, Ll7 5s lid-; Hayes v. Murphy, L 2 15s; Potham v. Doyle, L 3 ; Hayes v. Hearse, L 7 ; Kerr and Co. v. O'Donoghue, L 2 ; same y. Smith, L 4: same v. Tracy, L 7 15s ; Staite v. Hearse, L 4 4s. Pothan v. Penaru was enlarged. Previous to the rising of the Court, Mr Staite applied for a reduction of the fine inflicted^ on Tohn_Gagliardi . in the early urged the facts that the defendant tiacl held a license for a length of time without any complaint being made against his house ; that he .had partly paid for a new license, but misfortune and the illness of his family rendered him unable to pay the full amount in time, and lastly that it was the heaviest fine inflicted by the Court yet for a similar offence. His Worship said he did not consider the conduct of the defendant such as would warrant the Court in mitigating the punishment. The defendant had made misrepresentations to the constable, and after the constable had given him time, which he had no right to do, to. complete the' payment of. the liconse fee he continued' selling ■ illegally, and even after he refused to : pay the 1 balance of the money,' or to takeout the license, he still /continued breaking the law. Greater leniency had been* §ho'wn the defendant than he deserved, and taking all the circumstances into, cpnsideration the penalty was riot heavier than ought to be inflicted. . : . The Court was adjourned to January 25.