RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Grey River Argus, Volume XV, Issue 1866, 29 July 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

... ♦ ■ Tuesday, July 28. (Before W. H. Revell, Esq., RM., and J. Greenwood, Esq., J.P.) Thomas O'Halleron, a miner from Maori Gully, was charged with being of unsound . -min'd,':and" unfit ito be"'atlarge.; D,r,Morice- said he had examined the accused on Saturday, and then' found him laboring under certain: delusions, but he was no better. He had never been of strong intellect, but he was not sufficiently bad to wairant hia iemoval "at present to a lunatic asylum. '.._ Dr Smith corroborated this evidence, and the patient was remanded for a week for further medical treatment. 'Charles Lerapfert was 'charged with selling" spirituous liquors at the Canadian Hotel, Richmond 1 Qiiayf on the 27th July, without* being duly^licensed uhcler the Licensing Act of 1873. Inspector Hicksony ■ who prosecuted, . 'said, the information was 'laid under the 6th of the Act,and called the 5 Clerk to the Court}- who f proved' that >tfi'el defendant applied for a renewal of his 'license at the first sitting of the Licensing' Board, constituted .under the new.Act.rjHis application was"ienl»rtaiQed'7'l}u^rel&e!iA<) n ne 21st April. He consequently did'not hold a qualification uuder<the ; present Act, but he held: a 'license issued t under the provisions! !iof the ,' Wflßtland-fvPublic-house Ordinance,; dated- 2?thi September, 1873, and was still in forcej ; -/t'-//- i ; Sergeant ! Molleir Baid p he ri went ! to the houseof the defeidant on t^e^th inst., and told him he Had instruc^oiis 1 to take proceedings against him,. for selling liquor in contravention of the present Licensing Act. . The defendant seemed surprised, because the police told him before that he fWould not berinterfered within the carrying on his business, while the, annual license he paid for in September last was •in forced. IThe- witness theh'inadeformal proof of the sale of spirituous liquors in the defendant's housej-'and l said that he kept a record of' all licensed persons, and the' defendant was riot so qualified under the new Act v;/ , y T r , x . | : I^ WJS 2!U . Crbss-examined by the defendant : I did tell you in June, that I had made proper inquiries,^ the; result of which I made known to Inspector Hicksbn, and I told you that the police would not interfere, with, you, in carrying qn-y;our business until the license your were.lthbwn to hold had expired. You said yon. had made arrangement : for.'seUmg out'of your business," and : that w^'attother : reason why the police considered 1 it "would be. an injustice, to jforce, you to shut up.your. hou3e jwhlle . yoyt.ha(l la 'license for't'-which you ■paid the' required . fab, 1 or^untii you could complete your arrangements for going out of business. ,-. ,'•-. By Inspecfer^BErekson : When I informed that the police would notlhteWere-with him, it was understood that the police^wSuldSofSieddle with, him; of theipiown A Jaft»oSd, or unless specially, ordered tp>do[spi .', Inspector Hickson said the evidence of Sergeant : Moller •waS)Substantially correct. When? Sergeant > Mollorifirsjt brought the •defendant's 'fcas'e urid^r-'hiß^iio'ticei a^er consideration lie came to the conclusion it was one' ( in which! the 1 f police 0 need not in interests' oftKe'public interfere, but he had -recent instructions from the Provincial Government to prosecute -in the jxeseiitcases.!!,■■ ;!'sO' M 3. 'xL . C IO x The defendant, in.reply the Bench, said he made all arrangements to dispose of his business, aridj if iriecessary, to close bis house; but from inquiries-He 'mad|lit the Warden's Office and : of 4he"'police%e was was assured 'he would iiot be breaking the law. by carrying on, his business untU the date of the expiration, of; hisrlicense^ The defendant here .put in his license, dated September^ 1873, twelve months from that date. The document .was.conntefsigned by the Provincial Treasurer of. Westland.. ._ ;_•__!.■ ■|7 .-The- jßench) considered • the;] defendant was justified in carßyingonibusineßS under the license^he ;7prodtfc6d. t Th*a:ti.' license was granted before4he present Act came in force, and^h^Oojurt did not consider it was bound'togb ;b^hind a legally issued permwsionV and^to^'aestion the right of the^.defendint.;to ■carry-'abnsMff trade unjbil{tiieTtime>fo^ which his fee hod been taken arid hislicense^&sued^iE&d expired. The case would be. dismissed with 'cbst&H" OV-'W-i 'P /rod ( Inspector Hicksqn gave' nßtici^of ap-' peal., ff ';/""" \7~"m ■''!'" . r ,The Bench .enquired, if the. public prosecutor bad ' received J instr'acii6na - -togive not&tf r of9apsßati r; " r: " ; '''' l :! H rJr -lnspiector^Hickson Saidh'e had been instructed to appeal, 1 in the event, of the Bench .expresßing ; an adverse opinion on the'eaaei -^.vyhiq-. .-:-;. .. : v>.;;:i.rr.3 ')tl oi . [■The, Bench remarked) that these were :most- oxtraordinary measures forthe Go Inspector Hickson said he was acting entirely uriderinlß'tructions.; .;.., The Bench then requested Mr Hickson to/gi^e his riotice-Of ■dppeaXin 1 wr^tmg. ..^Michael,^.' .iVehch r ,^3. charged ; with a similar offence, at' the • WaUsendjAotel near.Rpck.lslaudjpnjtheroad^to'Brunnerton. -In thia.cas.e:the(de|endant's license, under> the.old-law, r li6es not expire until the -24th, .•.September,orliß74i ') Sergeant Moller formally prbVe'i the sale 1 of spirituous liquors'by 1 the defendant or his servants, and, also, that he was not the holder pf" a . b'cense tKe new Act. The defence was; that the'defendant had an ; unquestioriable^right to sell under his license, arid he v admitted carrying on business as charged.. The- Bencfr dismused- the. case jalsb, and f Mr : Hockson gave notice of hi 3 intention to appeal. -'S.jG.) Rowley, iWas charged with neglecting to keep his licensed housei^itheTConcord Hotel, open-on the 3rd, 10th, 17fch, -20thV^ana S7th-July4 tod L also with not residing on the premises, by law required. An^application" foY , an , ad jourriment was Made on, the; part, of jfche/d^fen|d|nt on account 1 of jhis iUness,^d a medical certi- .. fi<^te^ of ; his 'inability;; to ,be; present was p.ut'in.fiMrjj^ckson opposed thejapplication. The presence: , of 0 the, lidefendant : was not^xequired, . for his .evidence; would not iibe' materially necessary ■*b;'the the defence. .After looking over the Act, the Magistrate ; said' the case might proceed ; •b\it; : after' taking /the evidence of_one or witriessesj; an adjournmeWiPbFS'dayo was granted. Mihl —■----■- . piVII, r OASBg. - • Samuel Rich' v. Augustus HUdfJjrarid. —A claim of 13." .cash lent the defendant bnithe 18thDec^mbef/ L llßr3: iii TO» plaintiff saidjr onithe^dayaih queatiorij^e de■fendant : panro to hia hoteL and- borrowed 20a in saver, as, he said he hadno.small oharige, and he did riot caw ■abou<itiok«

ing up drinks. The plaintiff produced his books, and showed the entry of the transaction at the time. The defendant denied, point blank, that he ever owed the plaintiff a farthing,- and made a long statement . describing the ; business relations between himself and < the plaintiff ; and dwelt upon: the; improbability of a man, who could draw his cheque whenever he wrote/ being obliged to borrow a paulty sum ; of 20s for the defendant. The Magistrate took the plaintiff's view of the case/ and gave him a verdict for the amount claimed, with costs. The Court adjourned.