MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 25 May 1923, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

THURSDAY, AIAY 24th. (Before Wm Aleldrum, Esq., S.AI.) AFTERNOON SITTING. The Court adjourned at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m. A KAXIERI CASE. The Police charged Elizabeth Head, licensee of the Empire Hotel (Air A Veils) with breaches of the Licensing Act. Constable Robert C. Drummond deposed he was stationed at Rimu. On sth. May he entered the Empire Hotel. Kaniori. Found five persons there in a room off the bar. AY. A. Head "•»s standing near the door of the bar, "hieli was partly opened, hut no liquor was exposed. Morris said Howat bail invited him in to have a drink and that William Head supplied the drink. Alorris said he had a brother married to Airs Head’s daughter. Skelton Head stated he had also come in on Ifowat’s invitation to have a drink. Edwin Howat stated he was a son-in-law ol Alts Head, living a few yards away and had shouted, thinking he had the right. William Owens had informed witness in a similar strain. AY. A. Head stated he had served the drinks. He was a son of the licensee. To Air AYells—Knew ATrs Head was not iu good health. Witness questioned the right of Howat to supply liquor. This "as the ease for ihe police.

Air AA'ells led evidence as follows:Edwin Howat deposed lie resided at Kaniori. His wife looked after the .hotel for her mother, except that she slept at home. AA'itucss had his meals there and he had always assisted at the hotel, lie had invited the men in to have a drink. There was no question of payment. The front door was open at the time. • He had often done Hie same before. The others were all relatives.

To Sergt. -McCarthy: lie did not pay for the drinks.

William Arthur Head deposed lie was the son of the licensee. He was a miner and worked at Rimu. He took no part in the management of the hotel, but served thinks at times. On this night Howat asked him to serve the di ink's. There was no payment. He would expect Howat to pay. His Worship said the only question was whether the son-in-law had the right to call for drinks, lie did not think that he had any authority to do so as he was not a lodger. Tile licensee had no right to supply. A conviction would bo recorded and a fine of £1 and costs. AYilliam Arthur Head on the charge of supplying would be convicted and lined £1 and costs. Tlie four relatives "ho were present were unlawfully on the premises and would be convicted and ordered to pay costs 7s each.

DEFENDED DEBT CASE. A. (Vderman (Air Wells), v. Mini Bros. (Air Murdoch) claim for £27 13s. for goods supplied anil work done. Defendants denied liability. For plaintiff, evidence was given by ,A. Cederman and G. Davidson, and for the defendant by A. Aluir. J. Alnir senr., R. Aluir and J. Blackwood.

His AA'orship in giving judgment stated that there was no doubt that Muir Bros, did not take except ion to tile account as it was to lie paid by Wick and Blackwood. He had to (i nsider whether Aluir Bros, were liable. There was no doubt that the b filer had been sent to the defendants for I heir use. He must hold that the father iu sending the boiler in to Cedeiman for repair acted »s agents for his sous. There was a pritna facie ease lluu they had sent (he 'boiler for repairs and therefore they were liable for payment. File trouble lie had was to decide what was a fair price. Plaintilf had taken advantage of his position and lutd put in charges that were unreasonable. For instance there was the charge ol C 3 10- for forging dps •ntJ c 3 15s for the rmling of Ihe lmiler. tj„ jhuttkl not '*e paid lot either *4 these, as one w;i. dr 'V malting of a tool of trade'"huh he kept for future work, and iu the latter charge, the boiler had in any evenl to be tested by the Inspector of Aliu-hinery and this had been done, the charge lor this Vicing £2 2s. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, and reviewing the charges made by otliei firms for similar work lie would accept the statement of Air Blackwood who placed the value of the work done at £fi, and judgment would he given, for £0 accordingly. No rusts would he allowed plaintiff owing to his failure to prove the larger part of his claim.