RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 181, 14 June 1862, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, .Time 13, 1562. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness.—Walter Haynes, for this offence, was fined 205., or 48 hours' imprisonment. Apprehension under a Warrant from Victoria.—Edward Geddes was brought up in. charge of the police, haying been apprehended imder a warrant issued in Victoria.

Mr. Ward, who- appeared for the prisoner, submitted that his "Worship had no j urisdwtion to back a warrant issue;! out of New Zealand, The Act referriug to this subject, the 11 and 12 Viet., applied > only to Great Britain, and not to any of the colonies ; and there was no statute or ordinance of the New Zealand Legislature which conferred the power of endorsing wan-ants issued ia another colony. Mr. Weldon then enquired if it was the opinion of the Bench that the police could not apprehend persons charged with offences in Victoria, and under warrants issued there.

The Bench.—Certainly not in law. There ought to be an Act passed by ths General Assembly.

The prisoner was accordingly discharged from enstody.

Nuisances. —Edward Hughes, the keepar of a restaurant in this Arcade, was charged, on the information of Inspector Nimon, with allowing a nuisance at the rear of his premises. Inspector. Ninibn described the back part of this and similar premises in the Araatle, as being of the filthiest description,—heaps of garbage and rubbish being permitted to accumulate.

This case was adjourned until Monday, to allow time for the defendant to remedy the evil complained of. A charge against another restaurant-keeper in the Arcade (Mr. Lyons), was summoned to appear on Monday next. Furious Driving.—Thomas Dixon was charged with having, on the 3rd of Jane last, been guilty of furious driving in Princes-street, Dunedin, thereby endangering the lives and limbs of Her Majesty's subjects. .Defendant denied the charge, but it was satisfactorily proved, by the testimony of the police,_ that ont'^e day in. question Dixon had been guilty of reckless driving, whilst under the eftects of drink. His Worship fined him 40.3. and costs; defendant saying it was a, very hard case, and that he was a teetotaller.

Trespassing.—Thomas Christopher and William Lee, for permitting their horses to stray in the limits of the town, were fined each 2s. Gd. and costs. Lewis Enford andJ. H. Gillemont, for leaving their horses and carts in the public streets unprotected, were each fined 10s. apd casts.

Information under the Licensing Okdixance.— John M'Cubbin, the proprietor of the extensive Ciife in the Arcade, was charged, upon the information of the police, of having • exposed for sale liquors, contrary to the provisions of the Licensing Ordinance. Mr. Cook, who appeared for the defendant, objected that the information did not stnte any oflence within the Ordinance. The section of the Ordinance under which the information had been laid merely gave the police power to seek and carry away liquors■• unlawfully exposed for sale. There was no offence set forth in the wording of this section of the Act. _ The Bench was, however, of opinion that the information bore out an offence within the meaning of the Act, and would accordingly go into the case. Police Sergeant Chapman stated that on xuonday, the 9th June, he went to the defendant's premises in. the Arcade, and on going into the front room, he saw a bar and a number of bottles upon a shelf behind it. The place was fitted up in the usual style of a public house bar. He went behind the counter and took the bottle of-brandy produced off the shelf. There were more than a dozen bottles, with apparently the same brand, on the same shelf. He also saw some dedecanters, which the barman said contained port and sherry. Defendant did not bold a license. To* Mr. Oook : The bottle produced is in the same state as when taken from the shelf. Did not count I the bottles. There might have been eight or ten. 1 Took two down not opened. Tasted the contents of

the bottle produced at the time of taking it off the shelf. It contained brandy. Saw cordials there, but upon a separate shelf. To get to the bottles he had to go through another, part of the house. Had heard it said that brandy was used sometimes for cooking. The brandy might have been kept for domestic purposes, for cooking, or for sale. Believed for the latter purpose. Police Constable Kirkpatrick corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. Mr. Cook, for tho defence, argued that tne'-e was no evidence whatever that the liquor had been exposed for sale. There was only the suspicion of the police, and the Bench could not convict ou suspicion. As to the house being fitted up for a public-house, the Bench was aware that Mr. M'Cubbin had twice applied for a license, and, of course,.had to put his premises into proper order before applying for the license. The learned gentleman again urged his first objection as to the wording of the Ordinance, which did not make exposing for sale an offence. His Worship was of opinion that the defendant had been guilty of exposing liquors for sale, and that it constituted au offence within the meaning of the Act; he should, accordingly, line the defendant £10 and costs. Air. Cook intimated his intention of appealing.

Theve were three or four other cases of the same nature as the foregoing, the hearing of which vras postponed until Monday next, at 10 o'clock.

CIVIL CASES.

Haooartt v. Paul.—Plaintiff' charged the defendant with having illegally detained sa boat, the property of the plaintiff. The iaets of the ease appeared to be these. On the ni.a-ht of the Gth or 7th May, the boat of the plaintiif, which had been fastened to the timber wharf, but got adrift, was picked, up by the defendant and his m ates near the prison brig moored in the harbor. The defendant and his mates are wood-cutters, and on the night in question were vowing up to town in their own boat with timber. Saw the boat of the defendant floating adrift down the stream, which was then running out viwy fast. The defendant and his companions picked up the boat, and towed it to their own place near the halfway stone between Dunedin and Port Chalmers, aud on the following day came to town aud advertised the boat as having1 been found, and that the owner could have it ou paying expeuses. The plaintiif-, in consequence of the advertisement went to defendant and demanded his boat, but refused to pay £1, tho sum demanded for the salvage of the boat, stating, that the boat had been stolen, and " he would put'a stop to people stealing boats and then advertising them to get a reward.1' His Honor dismissed the case, with costs.

Hers v. Solomon. —Claim for £13 23. C;l., bsing-the price of 3:]-doz. shirts, supplied by plaintiff to defendant.

This was a case of dispute as to the time of returning some goods, agreed to be taken back by plaintiff if returner] within a reasonable time. Plaintiff stated that they had not-been returned in a reasonable time, having been kept over three weeks. Judgment for plaintiff, for amount claimed aud costs.

Cameron and Thompson v.. Samuel Marks. —Claim as per account stated, for £19 Is. Gd; Judgment for plaintiff, for £12 lxJs. tid. and costs. Fisiiek y. Solomon. —Claim, for £37, reduced, to bring it within tiie jurisdiction of the Court, to £•20.

Judgment, by consent, for £20. M'Ghkgoii' v. Btan.—Claim for £5, for wages and loss occasioned by breach of agreement.

Judgment for plaintiff, for £i and costs. Hyams v. Benjamin.—Claim for £2 Bs. Judgment for plaintiff". Goudos v. Gumming.—Claim lor £2 10s. Gd. Judgment for plaintiff', for amount and costs. DoItMAN V. PACKEK, AND STEPHEN DoKMAJT. —Adjourned to Monday. Cunningham v. Wilson. —Claim on a promissory note for £.9 Ifo. Oil. Judgment for plaintiif. Ba-r.cua.iis Y. Campbell.—Plaintiff, the Captain of the -lighter Tiger, sued the defendant for £10 3a Gi!, being the charge for lightering certain goods of defendant from Port Chalmers to Dunedin. Mr. Keuyon, who appeared for defendant, pleaded not indebted, and said that the cose had been brought to the Court in order to settle the law of the matter. Captains and agents of vessels were in the habit of instructing- persons in the capacity of the plaintiff to remove the goods of consignees from the vessels to Dunedin. The question was, " What contract was there between the plaintiff aud the defendant, between the consignee and the lighter.'' The bill of lading stated that the goods would be removed from the vessel at the risk and expense of consignee. The consignee, therefore, if liable at all, was liable to the captain and agents of the vessel. There was no privity contract between plaintiff and defendant. It was of the greatest importance that the Court should decide this point, as very many cases of dispute wore continually occurring. His Worship was of opinion that there was no contract between the parties. Defendant stated that it was the regular custom of the port for the captains and agents of vessels to' give instructions to the lightermen ,• it would be manifestly inconvenient and, impossible to discharge a vessell if each consignee brought his own boat. His Worship would take rime to consider the matter, and ascertain the extent of the custom of the port, and would give judgment on Tuesday.