RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Volume III, Issue 42, 12 February 1864, Page 7

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wednesday, February 10th, 18Gi. (Before M.- Price, Esq., R.M.) Two inebriates were fined in 20s and 5s ' respectively. Liquor Selling on Sunday. William Roebuck was charged with having on Sunday evening last kept liis house open ' for the sale of liquors after the statutory hour. Two constables deposed to visiting the Union at half-past ten o'clock, when they found a number of persons at the bar, but no liquor was visible, the waiter, as they alleged, being too smart for them, in having everything removed before they reached the bar. ; Inspector Weldon urged that the Act applied to keeping , the house open, but the ,Court ruled that conviction and fine could only follow on proof of actual selling. When ■ such was furnished the Bench had determined to show no mercy to those guilty of this reprehensible practice, and the lowest fine in any ease would be £20. In the present instance there was no proof of any sale having taken place, and, accordingly, the case was dismissed. William Livesey, proprietor of the Prince of Wales Hotel, was charged with a similar offence. The same two constables stated that they entered the hotel by the front door, which was standing wide open, at 11 o'clock, p.m. In the lobby they met three men whom they knew to be neither boarders nor lodgers coming out, and in the room beside the private bar four or five men were found with glasses before them, but no liquor. One man, known as' " Joe," was lying intoxicated on a form. After some cross-examination by Mr. Livesey, the case was adjourned to produce evidence for the defence. Robert Given, Waverley Hotel, pleaded guilty to the same offence, and naively stated that he had been in the practice of selling up to ten and eleven o'clock on Sunday nights, ever since he opened the premises. He never knew • there was any restriction as to time. The Court, in astonishment, asked defendant if . he had ever read his certificate ? Defendant said there was no hour mentioned in ; it, and handed his receipt for the license money to the Bench, as the only document he had. ; His Worship reminded him that the hours and conditions; on which he held his license were all in the certificate, and that he j must or ought to have read it. Following out the threat already given, the penalty of ! £2O and costs were imposed, or two months imprisonment in default of payment. ; - ,".,Miis t e Host " in a Passion. — Augustus ,P,uttelkow was charged with having committed .a violent assault on the person of 'Hiram Abraham, on Monday evening last. Mr. Button conducted the prosecution, and Mr. South the defence. From the evidence it appeared that prosecutor had been at the Theatre on the evening in question. At the end of the second act of the first piece, he went down 'to the bar-room attached to the place, where he was served with some lemonade by Mrs. Puttelkow, for which he tendered half a ; crown. ; Some dispute followed about the change, and prosecutor returned to his place in the theatre. On leaving it at the end of the third act, he was .passing through' the bar-room, when defendant seized him from, behind -and administered a severe castigatipn on his head and shoulders, which necessitated his having a handkerchief ' bound round the former." In defence, Mr. South stated, that when disputing about his change, the prosecutor had used foul language .to Mrs. Piittelkow, and this coming to her .husband's knowledge, defendant acted as he (Mr. .South) or .any other, person might do in similar, circumstances. ' The case was ' remanded ' till" Saturday, for the production of evidence for the defence. . Axxeg-ed Theft.— Andrew C. Bell brought up on .remand, charged with the theft of a, number of carpentez's' arid sawyers' tools, was dismissed, the evidence being defective. '' ' ..' ; : ! . :? , CiVii 1 Cases. : '■'>■ .'■■■■ •:•■;•:./:£; Clarke -t: ; Peaesox; '■■ ■. . 'Thisadjourned: case was brought up, arid ■ Mr. Harvey addressed the: Court at; length for the, defendant.. . The Benchgave judgement for , plaintiff ;with costs. 'Mrl Harvey gave notice 'of •appeal^ Mr. Weston objected, but the appeal wasigranted, arid the case will therefore be 'heard in the High Court, Duriedin. The other civil cases were unimportant. - • Thursday, llth February. (Before M. Price and J. N. Walt, Esqrs.)' There were no police cases to-day. ' Civil Cases, Burrett v Robertson. ' Claim for £7 10s., for service of an entire \ horse. Defendant admitted" ownership of the mare, but pleaded the liability of a a third party, Mr. Fisher. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs. ( Burrext v Christy. ' Case adjourned for attendance of CixDER, BIACKXOCK AND Co. T Marshaxx. » ' Defendant confessed the debt, but pleaded inability to pay at present. - , Judgment for plaintiffs, it being understood they would give reasonable time for ' payment. ' ' "Weight v Conboy.' •' Plaintiff had worked as a painter for defendant about , three weeks, at the rate as alleged, of 12s. s per day ; and the claim was for balance of, wages. . • " ■ ',' " The defence wasj' that tie. only were offered, arid plaintiff chose to work at that.

Judgemht fov plaintiff, at 11s. per day, he paying cob|s. ' 1 ' D-AXWICK V &BA.Y. < . No appeartmce of defendant. Judgement for plaintiff. win. Livosoy again appeared to answer a 'charge of Keeping 'open house on Sunday night. " He -was defended by Mr. Button. Joseph. Sherlock, butcher, deposed that he wont to the fPriuco , of Wales Hotol, about half-past ten or eleven , o'clock on the night in question. His 'purpose was to 3ee one Of the girls, and, if he could, to havo 'a drink. He went in by the back door, and then to the rooms -where the boarders wero. Asked Mr. Livesey for a drink, and was refused. Witness denied being drunk. 'He saw one of the boarders lying down : on a sofrt; He (witness)' was not the person to be 'seoriilyingidown by ;the; witnesses on.previous day..- ,; Saw no ,one : drunk. _ There w,as , some talking about the races, but that was all. ,' The two constable's who 'were put into the' box 'affirmed that Sherlock was the man they alluded to, but they; could ; not positively, arsert .that he was drunk. His, Worship, .after, reiterating his determination to have,, but one penalty, viz., £20, when a case of this kind was clearly proven, admitted that ' tliei'e : was a Roubt •whether Sherlock was drunk or not, and giving , Mr. Liveteoy the benefit of it, the case was dismissed. . ■