RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 1298, 26 August 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THURSDAY, 25te AUGUST. . DBTTNKBNmSSa. " One repentant . inebriate was dismissed with a reprimand; sly aßoo-SBiiiiira. Patrick ' Hogan was brought up charged with this offence, in so far as that on the evening of the 20th inst., he sold spirituous or fermented liquors within his house, Dee-street, without a license. Mr Harvey ... appeared .for. the defendant, the prosecution being conducted by the Inspector of Police. , . The 'first witness called was Charles Kain, .laborer, who, being swdrn, deposed — Was in Hogan's house on Saturday evening last. Thomas Stanton was with, me. Two men, Michael Hogan and Finnerty, came in blind drunk afterwards. Can't tell well what took place, as I was tipsy myself. There was some beer brought in— l paid for it. Can't say who tooVthe money. . I just threw it down. Mrs Hogan brought the beer in. She was gone agood while for it. More drinks were brought in after that by Mrs Hogan. Don't know where_ s£e got-it. ■ •.. ••-■ * : :- : ~ : ; : Mr Harvey, who defended the case, .tsrossexamined the witness, but without altering his evidence., . , , Thosl Stanton, laborer, sworn, deposed — Was with last witness in Hogan's on the night of the 20th. M. Hogan and Fmnerty tossed for drinks. Finnerty lost, and Mrs Hogan brought in some beer— four glasses. Didn't see anybody, pay the money. After that, I called in six glasses myself. I paid Patrick Hogan three shillings. To Mr Harvey — Can't say whether the money was paid before or after the drink was supplied. Iwaß a little "on" myself. Mrs Hogan was away some tune— long enough to have gone out for it. We very often send out for beer, or, a_ bottle of grog, when visiting at each other's houses. " To the Bench — The six glasses of beer were for all present. I paid the money after it was brought- in. Mr Harvey drew the 'attention of the Court to its being a common practice amongst people in the position of life of defendant and the wit* nesses, to send out for drink when visiting each other. The clause of the Act— the 37th — under which the case was brought, applied to the keeping of liquor for sale for profit, and not to the case of the owner or occupier of a house merely acting as the intermediate agent between the person paying for the drink, and. the licensed" house where it was procured, as was simply the fact in the present instance. He - commented on, the absence of .any evidence on the part of the police themselves ; the' fact, he said, being that they had, very properly, made a search of the premises and found nothing. He submitted that nothing had been adduced to show that liquor ever had been either kept or sold upon the premises,; and that the -circumstances were; in reality, such as he had been instructed fthey were — simply a paying for liquor procured at a neighboring hotel, without benefit or interest to his client. ; , His Worship thought the sale clearly proved by the evidence of the last witness, and corroborated by that of the first — both being rather unwilling witnesses. : With regard to the penalty* he thought .it should be severe. The offence was one very prevalent in the town, and one which was very difficult of detection. It was therefore his duty to be severe, and he should inflict the full penalty of £30. ] Mr Harvey — Or in default ? His Worship — It is not necessary for the Court to state the alternative ; the fine will be recoverable in a summary manner, and if there is nothing to levy on, then imprisonment for three months follows. Mr Harvey — Might I mention I think that is a longer period than the Act authorises your Worship to give. His Worship— l do not need to state the alternative, but for your satisfaction I have done so— one month for every £5, not exceeding in the whole three months. ... - emu cases. J. Hamilton, baker, sued A. Hamilton, Hokanui, for £23 10s Bd, goods sold and delivered. - ; Mr Russell appeared for the plaintiff. Defendant did not answer, and judgment -was, given" for the amount, with costs, £4 155. Mr H. E.. Osborne, auctioneer, sued. Mr R» B. Williams for £15 18s 6d, comprising-' sundry charges, including withdrawal commission at 2\ per cent, on a certain parcel of land formerly' placed-in plaintiff's hands foraaler Mr Harvey, for defendant, admitted all the charges save the commission— amounting to £11 17s— and had paid the amount, into court, as also, in addition, a sum of £2 in lieu of the commission, as a fair and reasonable allowance for plaintiff's trouble. : - ; . : -. ; ; .•-.<'. :; i . Mr Macdonald, who appeared for plamtifty. called ■■■••' - - .., , ; ! - Mr Osborne, who deposed — On the 11th of April last, Mr Dalgliesh, as .agent for Mr Williams, placed the property in question in my hands for sale', with a reserve of £3 per acre on it. _ I advanced him £60, by bill, on Mr Williams's account, without charging commission on the transaction. I was entitled to 5 percent, on it, but waived my claim in consideration bfthe land being in my hands. The bill was paid' at maturity, 14th July,, and the/, land was withdrawn from sale the following day. Mr Williams • had returned to the Province then, and asked me to send the account for advertising to Mr Dalgliesh. .1 made out my account, and handed" it to Mr Williams. He refused to pay it, unless" I accepted £2 instead bT"the two and a-half per cent; jAltds the<rnle of trade here, at OQunedin," and at Melbourne, to charge two and a-halt on withdrawals. I had had applications, for" the property, and : been -at a : good deal of trouble .about it. . . .. r ,l'' : To Mr Harvey-^The reserve was not £600l r tt is tb.6 custom, as well as the rule, to charge two,: 'and a-half withdrawal' commission J on 3 land' as well as on. goods. It is not invariably, charged; I -have omitted "it occasionttlly my »elj. i

I hare been informed that Mr Mserorie ha» charged it. -There are letters in Court showing I had parties in treaty for the land. Mr M'Pherson, chairinan^ef the Chamber of Commerce, was exarained i 'ass|ia'^^^^ppif^J^ with regard to withdrawal comtWa»K|^?«xfc ; «|gi it «"w,as chargeable oif?gpolB, bucgid notjknowi wfieiner.it' was on property—ho|j*esui^Litvwould be.' i.v ■- \- ■:■'■■ ' : x |£>\ For? the defence, Mr Harvty, cauafl&s* 1 Mr Williams, irko stated that heihfjl; *fsggL, to pay the amount on the ground thw.thA^M^" mission was aniinusaal and unMjUonahkg|prge. To Mr Mac^paald'%que3tion-^^9^§@Pr Toa arrive at tfio%2, as » proper remuneration ?" witness replied, lt^Ftist because 1 thought it was." Had nerer known withdrawal commission on land charged here.'" "Wa^not^'comnussioHikgent, but a private agent. •> O' • ' > ■'/ '' ; Mr Grant, "auctioneer, Riverton, deposed — "Never -hare "charged'" witharlSwll"^nimissl6n on land, or. Btopk; ■'•never; heardr;. of iifta being dono here; I charge only advertising and other ©x« penses, and a small sum for my" trouble,.. Mr Macrorie depose^- Am^aitaucilaoaaM here, and have been in same business elsewhere ;Tit is usual to oharge half commißßion^&ttTpropei*y>put in for auction and withdrawn pnorto'3ay of taia. On property placed for sale # privStelyi and -tubsequently withdrawn, I have been in the habit of getting a fee, usually £2 2a. To Mr Macdonald— The distinction (a commission in one case and a fee in the other) rests on the ground that where property is advertised for positive sale, and afterwards withdrawn, faith is broken with the public; in that case I am entitled to commission. To the Bench — Property withdrawn from an agent's hands, and subsequently sold, through information supplied by that agent, I think entitled to pay full commission,' but weddn^t often gat it. Two other, witnesses were examined,:* hose evidence was unimportant. His Worship thought plaintiff entitled to a fair remuneration for. his trouble,' and had it been shown that it ywas customary .to rate. jthat remuneration by way of per eentage, he ■hould hare given judgment on' that ground,' but no evidence had been adduced to show that such a 1 custom existed, as would- entitle the plaintiff to claim 2J per cent. The sum offered appeared reasonable, and judgment should therefore be for the amount paid into court. - For the balance, £9 17s, plaintiff would be non-suited, with costs, £1 ■4s. - ....—--■- ,- -