MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2219, 28 April 1880, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TTMAHC —THIS DAY. [Before It. Becthara, Esq. E.M., 11. BoKiold, and B. Woollcombe, Esqs. J.P.’s.] ALLEGED TSEEACJI OF THE PUBLIC HOUSE OKUIDAXCE. Ifcmy Gardener, landlord of tlic Sportsman’s Arms, Saltwater Creek,was charged on the information of the police, ' with haying served Thomas Joyce with two glasses of hcer and a bottle of brandy on April 8, being then in an intoxicated state.

Mr Hamcrsley appeared for the accused and pleaded not guilty. Thos. Joyce, laborer, Timaru, stated that he remembered being at the Creek hotel, about the date mentioned. He went to the hotel on the afternoon previous to the day of the accident to Hughes (who fell out of a cart in which he was riding, it will be remembered on April 8 last and was killed). Mrs Gardener supplied him with the beer and also with the bottle of brandy next morning. Could not say whether he was drunk or sober when he was served by her. By Mr Hamersley—Might have been intoxicated when served with the liquor, but was not sure ; his memory W'as a very bad one. Could not say what occurred cither the day before or the day after the Bth. To the best of witness’ belief the beer Avas served on the morning of the Bth, shortly after he got out of bed. Could not say whether he was sober when served with the beer. Had a slight recollection of being served with a bottle of brandy. By the Bench—Took the brandy away and afterwards partook of it, neat. Mr Hamersley said that he should now bring witnesses to prove that Joyce Avas perfectly sober Avhcn served Avith the I'quors ; he would call Mrs Gardener the wife of the defendant.

Mr Bcetham—But this Arnry woman has already SAvorn before me at the inquest on Hughes that the man Joyce was not sober Avhen served Avith the liquor.

The Avitness affirmed that His Worship Avas mistaken, and Mr Hamersley remarked that evidence taken in the Coroner’s Court could not affect the evidence in this Court.

Bridget Gardener deposed that Joyce slept at the Sportsman’s Arms on the night of the 7th. About a quarter past eleA'cn on the following morning Avitness served him Avith a bottle of brandy, and about five minutes , aftenvards Avith txvo glasses of beer. Joyce seemed sleepy at this time but was quite sober. He did not open the bottle of brandy AA 7 hen served Avith it. William Hughes and George Bryant Avere present Avhen he was served Avith the beer and brandy 7 . The Avitness Avas here cautioned by the Bench that her evidence contradicted that Avhicb she had giA 7 en at the inquest. Mr Hamersley asked that the Avitness’ own evidence on the point might be read over to her from the depositions taken at the inquest. The Bench then read the following passage from the witness’s deposition at the inquest “ Hughes was perfectly sober, Joyce Avas not so sober.” Wm. Hughes Avas then called and stated that he was present when Joyce was supplied with the beei’, for which. Avitness and another man, in fact, paid. Would not haA 7 e shouted for Joyce if ho had been the atox'sc for liquor. Mr Hamersley stated that he had other witnesses, if necessary 7, to prove that Joyce Avas perfectly 7 sober when served Avith the liquor. The case was dismissed ; the Bench remarking that it was nevertheless, a very proper case to bring. UNUEGISTDI!ED DOGS. George Boavcias avus charged on the information of Mr E. H. Lough, toAvn clerk:, Avith having an unregistered dog in his possession. Mr Arthur Perry appeared on behalf of the Borough Council, and stated that the information Avas laid under section G of the Dog Nuisance Ordinance.

The defendant conducted his oavix case, objecting to the charge on the ground that the dog named did not belong to him at all, but to a friend residing in the came bouse Avith him.

Mr Lon gh, toAvn clerk, deposed to seeing, in February 7 last, a brOAvn x-e----triever dog folloAving the defendant; it AA - as unregistered, and Avhen the Avitness called the defendant’s attention to the fact he said it Avas no business of his. He had not yet registered the dog. Cross-examined by r the defendant— Will not sAvear that you did not direct my 7 attention to the fact that the OAvner of the dog lived Avith xxic. . Remember your saying that if the case came to Court it Avould be lost.

George Durant deposed to OAvning a brown retriever dog. The former Avas registered for the hist time yesterday, Mr Boavcias resided in the same house Avith him, and the dog xnight perhaps folloAv him in his (avßucss’s) absence from homo, but not otherwise. Some further evidence having been given, llis Worship said he should dismiss the case, as he considered that Mr Lough had been sufficiently 7 informed as to the rigid OAvnersliip of the dog. Mr Perry 7 gave notice of appeal against the decision. W. Townsend and D. McLean were each fined 20s and costs, for having unregistered dogs in their possession.

(Before B. Bcetham Esq., E.M.) Grubb v. Bruce, claim £BB Is 4d. Mr Tosswill appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Eeid for tbe defendant. The hearing of this case was resumed this morning, it having been adjourned .yesterday afternoon for the production of certain necessary witnesses. Mr Eeid this morning intimated that although he had caused every inquiry to be made, as to the whereabouts of these witnesses, they had not been found ; the men were members of the crew of the Nightingale, and they were .yesterday paid off here and were supposed to have gone to Lyttelton by tho early train this morning. They had been summoned to appear and he (Mr Eeid) was only sorry that the court had not the power to issue warrants for the arrest of these men ; as it was they must do the best they could without them. John Aiton, clerk to the defendant, was then re-examined by Mr Eeid, whoso first question had reference to an item of £9 2s, said to have been paid away by Grubb, when His Worship, interrupting, remarked that this matter had already been fully investigated ; to use a nautical expression, in fact, which was excusable in the present case, the witness had with reference to this particular payment been completely “ pumped out.” (Laughter.) Captain Eobert Storm, twenty years master mariner, was then called by Mr Eeid to prove that the ship’s stores were the property of the owner. It was not the general custom for masters to dispose of stores either by sale or barter without special lease from the owner. This witness was called to give evidence as to the custom obtaining with regard to ships’stores, because if appeared that the plaintiff had bartered some bags of oatmeal when master of the Nightingale, in exchange for other provisions for the use of "the ship; he had also disposed of some ship’s rigging without being authorised to do so. Counsel having addressed the Bench, His Worship remarked that it appeared that the defendant had neglected to file a set-off against the present claim, and to avoid another action, it v, ould be

better for the solicitors engaged in the case to settle the matter between them. After conferring together for some minutes, Mr Eeid said that he would, on behalf of the defendant, consent to judgment for the amount claimed, £9 2s, alleged by the plaintiff to have been paid away by him as wages, and £l6 claimed in lieu of dismissal; making a total of £25 9s 2d. _ The offer being accepted by the other side, judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, less the above items, viz., £62 12s 2d, together with costs, £7 2s. 1 NFEINGEMENT OF THE BUILDING REGULATIONS. Four persons summoned for infringements of the Building regulations, were fined 20s each. A fifth information was dismissed owing to informality.