SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5520, 5 December 1878, Page 2

SUPREME COURT —IN BANCO.

Wednesday, December 4. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice.) FIRTH V. BROWNLEE. His Honor said this was a caso which had been argued before Mr. Justice Richmond, and he would read the judgment. The demurrer to the plea was overruled. BROWN V. BRENNAN. Mr. Buckley moved for a rule nisi for a new trial in this case, on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. The trial took place at Hokitika before the Chief Justice, at the last sittings of the Court, and the suit was brought by Brown against defendant, as representative of a mining com- . pany, to recover damages for alleged malicious prosecution. Tho jury found for plaintiff, and awarded him £l5O damages. The Court reserved its decision till Friday. SMITH V. GILMER AND OTHERS. Mr. Buckley moved for a rule nisi dismissing the suit, in consequence of plaintiff not proceeding. The issues had been settled, and plaintiff declined to go to trial. Rule nisi granted. BARLOW V. NICHOLSON. Mr. Ollivier moved for a rule setting aside the nonsuh and granting a new trial in this case. The Court reserved its decision. TOOHILL V. NEVILLE. Special case stated by the Resident Magistrate. The case, after setting forth the fact of an infoanation having been laid against defendant for having in violation of the Licensing Act of 1874, which provides that no licensed victualler shall employ in his licensed house after 11 p.m. any female to sell alcoholic or other liquors, and his conviction thereupon,proceeded to set forth that it w,a proved at the hearing that the female was acting in the bar of defendant’s licensed premises at the time alleged after 11 o’clock at night, selling alcoholic and other liquors, to sell which until 12 midnight tho defendant held a license. It was also proved by the evidence of the said female and the defendant that she was so acting voluntarily and contrary to orders previously given tu her by the defendant. It was also found that the fact of her being in the bar and acting as stated was within the knowledge of the defendant. The magistrate, in stating the case, added, "In convicting defendant as aforesaid of the offence charged I was of opinion that there must be a presumption of employment when a servant acts on behalf of the employer to his knowledge; that the evidence disclosed the defendant’s tacit consent to the sale as aforesaid by the said female; and that even assuming that the defendant bad given orders to the said female upon previous occasions not to act as aforesaid, there was sufficient to show that the defendant permitted his servant, the female aforesaid, to ignore and disobey such orders. I determined that the matter hereinbefore stated afforded no ground of answer or defence. But, notwithstanding the nominal penalty [ls. and costs] inflicted, X consented to state a case for the opinion of this honorable Court, inasmuch as the decision upon the point involved will regulate the conduct of licensed houses in this respect throughout this district. The question for the opinion of this honorable Court is whether my determination was erroneous in law. Mr. Buckley, who appeared for appellant, contended that as the Act was passed for the protection of females employed in public-house bars, and to prevent their being worked more than ten hours a day, it bad not been broken in this instance, because if the barmaid worked after 11 it was at her own will, and even contrary to the expressed wishes of the employer, as set out in the case. Further, it was not shown that she did not CDme within the exemptions in the Act, —it was not shown that she was not a mother, sister, or wife of the defendant. The Court confirmed the infliction of the penalty. BAUCKE V. BALLANCE. This was a demurrer to plaintiff’s declaration. His Honor the Chief Justice said as he had given advice to the New Zealand Government which had resulted in this case he could not sit. The only Judge who had not yet heard the case was Mr. Justice Richmond, and he would inquire whether and when that Judge could hear the argument. BAYFIELD V, EVANS. This is an action arising out of certain raining transactions on the West Coast. Defendant demurs to plaintiff's declaration. After argument the Court reserved its decision.