Resident Magistrate's Court, Foxton.

Manawatu Herald, 15 April 1893, Page 2

Resident Magistrate's Court, Foxton.

(More H. W. Brabant" Esq, X.M);

THtTft!?ii*¥, Urn April.

CIVIL CASfcS;

Hennessey. Westwood & Co v> W. liorti-Olaim £4 14s Od. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount and costs 10s.

T. Ennis v. Wi Bpereinia— Claini £id os.

The defendant admitted all the claim except £3 tOs» the piaintitf admitted an error and would agree to the reduction.

Judgment was given for £9 18s and Costs 21s> to be paid at the rate of £2 a month, first payment this day week.

M. Holland V; J; Anderson— Claim £2 18s, Jitdghient for amount with costs 103.

J. W. Watson v. P. Hennessey — Claim £8 19d.

Mr Halltday- appeared for plaintiff. J. W. \Vatsoil deposed he did some mowing in December last | considered himself an average mower ; raked hay into cocks ; rained and blew several times, spread and heaped up cocks three oi 4 four times ; nothing was said about pay ; shilling an hour is the regular charge ; built the stack, cut the thatch ; did not charge anything for doing the thatching; did several jobs round the house whilst hay was being made ; sunk a well, defendant helped ; have rendered account ; defendant oftered him 58s ; defendant said he did not understand where the time was put in ; admitted a contra account of 21s lOd.

By defendant — When engaged defendant said " Could I mow" Could not say what defendant had said about McKay ; Kerr made the first account out ; could not say the answer given when asked for explanation of amount of account ; Spelman gave 9s for 9£ hours work and 2 pints of beer, and 6s a day when doing the rouse-about.

By R.M. — There was no arrangement how time was to be kept.

P. • Hennessey deposed to the times the plaintiff worked, and that only 35cwt had been saved; the date mentioned by plaintiff as working at Avell was wrong ; after rendering the 58s bill plaintiff had offered to take 40s and the store bill.

James Ingrain deposed that he capped a stack ; there was a ton and a half of hay; the paddock, one acre, was worth 15s to mow ; the land was an acre section ; a good mower would cut it in a day and a half.

By Mr Halliday — The whole work cutting, stacking, and thatching would cost 50s ; 14s would not be a fair price for cutting £ of an acre.

By R.M.— The plaintiff's work altogether, done by himself alone would be worth 60s.

The R.M. said both parties appeared to have conducted their business in a very loose sort of way. The claim was at per hour and defendant asserted he had not employed him by the hour. . The amount was only 7s in dispute. He jfave judgment for hah the claim and the judgment would be £2 13s 7d, costs 6s. CRIMINAL. William Light was charged with being the holder of a conditional license under the Licensing Act 1881, did fail to have printed or fixed on the premises in respect of which his license was granted, his name with the addition after the name of the word licensed.

The defendant pleaded not guilty,

Mr Cooke appeared for defendant

Constable Gillespie prosecuted. He said the charge was laid under section 123 of " The Licensing Act 1881," and he called attention to section 29 ; the information was laid as W. Light had no sign on the premises, neither was he there, and another man named Smith was there apparently selling on his own account.

Constable Gillespie deposed he visited the Foxton racecourse on 23rd January and found two licensed places there, one being run by Mr Light ; did not see Light but saw Smith ; asked him to produce his

license and if Mr Light, was dovfr) j did not see Him 1 tlirit.ttay' j tfclere $as no sign or any notice whatever to show that Mr Light was a licensed parson who was running the booth ; Ths only printing was the Denbigh Hotel, at the back ; as Mr Light was not there and thyre Was nothing to show he was it liceiised jjersoii lie laid the charge. By .Mr Coak— Am 1 not Eware . pi: anything ill tlie ! Act dottipeilittg" Mr Light to be at the booth. The sign was oj ly on one side; believe the same man ran the booth last year ; the sign produced is not the sign displayed at the booth ; would not be sure it WaS olle used previously ; cannot sfty that he did complain if the ilatrie Was Hot exposed ; if I had seen the nanle Denbigh Hotel on the sigll I ttiight Hot have kid the iiifdrWation ; the other booth anl Hot positive had " licensed premises '* oii.it;

fl.y 4 1J.8t.--Waitld tidt have been satisned even if I had seen." W. Light " upon the sign. ~? ..

Mr Cook said that in the first plage there Wag iio offenoc in law to answer. $ectiori 88 says . • /i .' • ' . therefore conditional license can only be issued for cricket, races, &c. You could not put it in front of the Course or encampment, it would be ridiculous This Was a license for No. 1 Booth on Foxton racecourse ; the Licensing Coilimittee liddno p"ower to grant a license for No 1 Booth but onlY for the course. He Would have it-sited for a dismissal but he desired it to be determined. . The defendant had used the placard all over the country.

$i Smith deposed he was acting for Mr Light at the last Foxtoil races ; sign produced was the design used) but would Hot say the name wag displayed as it wad blowing. very hard and the sign had to be tacked np to hold j Mr Border had tile dther booth and had no more than he had \ oil all the faeeii courses he had seen usual ones used*

By Constable— Wind blew hard dii the iagt Fofcfcoii race dttyj that was the reason he tacked it down { after 8 o'clock it was calm ; turned the calico twice over to flail it j was Mr Light's manager j swear the sign produced was the one used ; had been ttdtliitig added to it state.

W. Light deposed he was holder of the conditional license ; the sign was the one he had and only one ever used.

By Constable— lt was my sign and my name.

The R.M. said as to the legal question section 23 was intended to apply to these licenses by the wording of it. If the Legislature had intended to accept conditional licenses it would have been ordered as packet licenses. It appeared that the name had been turned in, and agent had admitted need of a sign. The word necessary to express his business was a technical breach which had been committed. He thoughc a small fine might meet the case. Convicted and fined 5s and costs 7s.

Agness Alan v. Ernest Allan and Hilton Allan.

Agnes Allan asked that an order might' be made against her two sons for support under " The Destitute Persons Acfc 1877." She could not earn sufficient at the boarding house to keep her family ; did not know what she earnt ; had six children dependent on her ; it was not true that she spent some of her money in drink. She was absolutely unable to keep herself without their help. The R.M. said he would make an order against each of the defendants co pay 3s a week each to applicant's support.