R.M. COURT, TEMUKA.

Temuka Leader, Issue 206, 4 December 1879, Page 2

R.M. COURT, TEMUKA.

Wednesday. 3rd Dec.. 1870.

Before F. Guinness, Esq., R.M,

The Court p.;.t at 10 a m

Joseph Harmp was charged by the police with having on August 18 sold less than 2 gallons of one kind of spirituous liquor, contrary to the Licensing Act, 1873-74. Inspector Pender conducted the prosocurion, and Messrs White an .I Austin appeared on behalf of accused. Perry F. Carlyon, sworn, deposed—-I am Sergeant of Police, stationed at Teinuka. I remember serving a summons on Mr Harrop on the 27th nil to appear today. Mr Harrop asked what it was for, and I replied for selling spirituous liquors in less than twc gallons, on the 18ch September last. He then stated that such was the case, Radford having bought it. He showed me an entry in his day-book. The entry was—“ Mas. Radford, 1 case of spirits, 525. Book produced.

By Mr White—He showed me a license fixed up in the store. The one produced is like it. Mr Harrop did not attempt to make any concealment, but showed me his books at once. ;:*■ James Radford said—l am a builder and contractor at Temuk*. I know Mr Harrop, and was in the habit of dealing with him. On August 18th last, I got a case of spirits. .It contained 4 bottles of brandy, 2of port wine,4 of sherry, and 2of whisky T 1 e case was brought by Mr Harrop’a storeman.

By Mi White ; All the bottles that I received were of the large size. I told Mr Harrop that a person named John Ardeli was going half. I do not remember telling him that mv wife was ill. Tha case was opened at my hous , and Ardeli took his half himself, I ha\e no; paid for this liquor. I filed in November last. I did not know whether Harrop had a license or not, and 1 never enquired. I did not lay the present information.

The sale having been admitted this concluded the evidence for the prosecution.'Mr White did not call an}' evidence for the defence and proceeded to address the Bench, pointing out that the case must be dismissed, on the ground that the person’s name to whom the liquor was supplied was not inserted in the information ; and also that the information should have been laid under the Distillation Act, 1868, instead of the Licensing Acts,Mr Harrop’s license being issued under former act,and therefore could not be brought under the provisions of tiie Licensing Acts.

His Worship over-ruled the former objection, but held the latter to be fatal, and accordingly dismissed the case. ; CASE WITHDRAWN. A charge of rape agains t John Matthews was withdrawn by leave of the Court. CIVIL CASES. Mahanld v F, Franks—Claim LI ss, for a pair of running shoes supplied to defendant’s son, Albert Franks. Mr Austin, who appeared for the defendant, submitted that he was not liable as the article supplied was not a necessary and therefore was not liable for the sporting debts incurred by his son, who had left him. His Worship considered the plaintiff had sued the wrong person and granted a nonsuit, allowing solicitors fee. B. Thompson v Conahan —Claim L 22 6s 4d. Judgment by default for full amount and costs.

Napier v Rile Claim 9s 6d. Mr Hamersley for plaintiff. A set off was put in by the defendant, but was thrown out as being informal. Judgment for amount claimed and costs 15s 6d.

Mr Hamersley said the present case was brought in order to show that the plaintiff was the proper person to receive monies owing to him for blacksmith work, as several parties refused to pay, on the ground that Williams, plainti-Ts late partner, had recently filed his schedule.