RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5614, 27 March 1879, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

I f:ii AYbdnbsday, March 26, • • | '(Before T. A. Hansford, 'Esq,* R.M.) ‘ 1 ; DRUNKENNESS. . \ A woman, an old offender, who had been fo.pkad-up [all night, .was discharged with a Scautiom fi ii. ’ HOTTEST -FRUIT., ■• ' ~ >.’• ! J. Cato, on remand, was charged with having unwholesome fruit in his 'possession. ■ ; Mr. Allan.defended.; 7 :'>• ■ „ «. -1 i .Inspector Johnson deposed that the fruit in 'question, was ;perfectly unfit for use. Hefound jit ‘outside Mr. Thomas’s auction room's, 1 The 'cases had been sold by. auction^; but the.pilr-1 Ichaser refused to take delivery of them... The {fruit consisted of two cases of oranges; .. 1 Mr. Thomas’s storeman stated that the. fruit in question had never been 1 soldi by. Mr. Thomas. , .mu.:. : .Vioro;:. ~ : Dr. Diver stated that he had: examined two jcases of oranges brought under' his 'notice by i'luspector Johnson. -He'inspected' the fruit,;' jaud found that fully .one half of it was perfectly: {unfit for human food. • '>’ ’■■■ '•*>».-> ‘■■t- ■ William Waters, bookkeeper 'for.. Mr; iThoraas, deposed that he believed : the oranges jwere sent by Mr.,Cato for'sale, -.d-J l; -, ! Mr. Allan, for the defendant, after reading .the clause inthe Act, submitt ;d that the case.: imust be dismissed. He maintained that’the :course pursued by the Inspector, was ,an er- • roueous one. ;. ; If; the Inspector of Nuisances !was of opinion that anybody had rotten .'or unwholesome fruit; in his nossessinn it.was : his duty to examine it and bring the fruit before. the;Resident Magistrate. In. Use event’of ■ the Resident;.Magistrate not; being present, then the services .of two justices of the peace should be obtained, and then if the fruit was found bad they" could condemn it. In the present instance the Inspector had hot done this.; ■ ■ ■■' , ' ■ ‘

His Worship said. in cases of this kind offenders were'liable,: to bo imprisoned or heavily fined. The Act was a penal one, and the offence must .be strictly proved before he could .convict. ; Ho: was of opinion that the Inspector of Nuisances, had not sufficiently followed the directions of the Act, and the case would be dismissed. CIVIC OASES. Burke v. McArdle.—His Worship in giving judgment in this case said it was an undisputed fact that the small, bone of the plaintiff’s leg Was; broken on Sunday, 26th January, and that the fracture was occasioned through a disturbance in the defendant’s licensed house. He had in a recent case expressed his opinion'that the landlord of a public-house was justified in turning out any person making a disturbance or conducting himself in a disorderly manner, but that no more force must be used than was necessary to accomplish the end desired to “be attained. That the plaintiff was conducting himself in a disorderly manner could not be doubted. The question then arose, did the defendant use more force than was necessary, and was the accident the result of that unnecessary force f‘ 1 His Worship expressed the opinion that the-’defendant acted improperly in allowing the ’plaintiff td’ be drinking'xn his house on Sunday, and that the defendant used more violence in ejecting the plaintiff from his premises than was necessary. He gave.judgment for the plaintiff for £SO and costs.' J. Austin y. Phillips, claim £15.1 Oshfid., f»r damaging‘furniture; Mrl - Pitt appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.. Allah for'the defendant. From the evidence it appeared that the defendant, a carter, was engaged to cart certain furniture from EhiwarratO Johnsonville. ’On fhe road 'the cart went over a bank, and the furniture was damaged to the extent’ Of the claim. For the defence it was contended that the affair, was an Occident, and that the claim was an excessive one. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for £lO and costs,

In the following cases judgments were given fpr plaintiffg with‘costs ;—J. Jackson v. J. H. Lyons, claim £2 ,95.; J. Ypung.v. T. Beeson, claim £10; J.’ Martin v. G. Smith, claim £B.