RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2028, 3 April 1890, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Geraldine—Wednesday, April 1. [Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.] PAYING WAGES IN A PUBLIC HOTTSE. R. Burnett, a contractor, was charged by the police under section 131 of the Licensing Act with paying wages in a public house, viz., the Eangitata Traffic Bridge Hotel. Mr F. Wilson Smith, who appeared for defendant, pointed out that the offence had been committed in pure ignorance of the law, defendant not knowing that it was illegal to pay wages in a hotel. Even if he had known, the houses were so widely ! scattered ia that district that it was almost impossible to pay them elsewhere, and the men would have had to have gone to Ashburton to have got their wages.

Mr Smith called Mr J, Q-. Eestall, agent at'Ashburton for the Mercantile Finance and Agency Company, who deposed to having been in the habit of paying defendant's men. He had told defendant that when he wished to settle with his men he (witness) would visit the Eangitata. Received word from defendant that the work would be finished by Friday or Saturday. Could not go on the Friday, and Saturday was very wet, so defendant did not start till late, on the road to see if the weather would clear, but decided to push on as felt the men would want their money. Arrived at the hotel at 10 o'clock p.m. Had something to eat and then adjourned to a room, not the tap room, and commenced to draw out the cheques according to a list Burnett had given him. The first was Quaid, £5, and Quaid had just received and endorsed it when Burnett cam<j in and said it was too much, there was a deduction to be made for boots and tobacco supplied. Changed the cheque and made the payment right and then paid the rest of the men. Just before 11 o'clock witness treated all hands and then went to bed. Just after Quaid had got his money witness heard Wheelband, the landlord, tell bim he had better go home to his wife and bairns. Witness' expenses came to £2 14s, and these Burnett had to pay, consequently he not only had to pay his men, but had to bear the expense of paying them as well. Mr Smith said he would like to call Mr Wheelband to show that Quaid spent no money in the house that night.

His Worship did not consider it necessary. There was no doubt a breach of the law had been committed. Mr Smith asked H.U Worship under the circumstances to dismiss the case. His Worship said he could not dismiss it, it was a distinct breach of the law to pay wages in a public house, as it was a temptation to men to spend money there. He was willing to take the circumstances into consideration in fixing the amount of fine. If he dismissed the case it would be tantamount to saying that there were circumstances under which wages could be paid in an hotel, but he held there were no circumstances under which a person was justified in paying wages in a hotel. Mr Smith asked for the lightest penalty to be imposed. His Worship said the maximum penalty fixed was £10; a fine of £l without costs would be inflicted. CITIL CASES. T, Harkham v. T. Bates, iunc— Claim £l2 12s 6d. The account was for board and lodging and drink supplied to defendant while plaintiff was landlord of the Grown Hotel, Geraldine. Defendant had at different times paid plaintiff suma amounting to £4 ] Os. £3 odd of this was placed against the drinks obtained, and judgment was given for the amount claimed and costs. Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs was given in the cases E. Harris v. Duncan Mackenzie—Claim £4* ss, arrears of maintenance of illegitimate child, and J. Riordan v. H. Parker—Claim £1 6s 7d. The court then adjourned.