MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2753, 20 December 1894, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka—Tuesday, December 18,1894. [Before C. A. Wray, Esq., S.M.J CELEBRATING NUPTIALS. Frederick Bateman, James Douglas, James Tucker, A. Hooper, Ohas. Hooper, Geo. Gibbs, jun., James Hart, Patrick Carr, John Carr, and W. Prattley, were charged with wilfully damaging a window and a garden at Arowheuua, the property of Edwin Briscoe. Gibbs admitted “ doing something, not all.” The rest pleaded “ Not guilty.” Edwin John Briscoe, laborer, resident in Arowhenua : Remember thp 27th of November last well. Was married that day. About 10 o’clock he and his wife wore in bed, when a lot of lads came to the door and commenced kicking and knocking. He went out and asked them to desist, and go off the premises quietly. They refused. The next thing ho recollected was receiving a smack in the breast with a lump of dirt. After a time he go r . them all out except two. Knew one of the two—James Douglas. Knew

Douglas, P. Carr, and J, Carr. Could not recognise others. After they went away witness went inside, and the boys came back and tied the door of the house outside. Heard two or three on the top of the house. A lot of dirty water came under the door, aud a large potato came through the front bedroom window, which was broken. James Douglas used bad language. He appeared to be the ringleader. Did not hear his voice on top of the They put bags on the chimney. They were thdre nearly two hours. Before they left, witness got o'jfside and found WOo4 piled up outside the door, chiefly bundles of b r o om and a l°g or two willow'. Potatoes j.n garden were trampled about, also an onion bed. whole of the garden was rporp or less damaged. As near as ho could say there were about flfteeu or twenty in the garden. Estimated the at about ten shillings. The door was fastened with wire to either a form or to some wood. He could not have opened it if they had not undone it. While they weru carrying on this wo*|f- be was actually looked in. They were making a poise and throwing dirfy etc. Did not

bear any particularly offensive language. They were hooting and making a noise. Only recognised those mentioned. It was a dark night. To Douglas: Did not strike you with a bottle. Did not throw any pig wash. Yon did not go out when asked. To His Worship ; About a couple of buckets of water were thrown into the house. Had to mop it up before his wife could get op. To P. Carr: Did not throw any water. To A. Hooper: Did not throw any glass over the fence. Constable Bourke stated that he spoke to F. Bateman, one of the accused, who admitted being amongst the others in Briscoe's garden on the night in question. They did not do anything especially bad. Had seen the damage done in Briscoe’s garden. It was trampled all over. The window was broken, evidently by an object thrown with great force. Constable Egan stated that James Tucker had admitted being in the garden, bnt not doing any damage. Tucker also said that those summoned were all there, and others besides. Constable Bourke asked to have Tucker and Bateman dealt with on their own admissions. His Worship said that undoubtedly they had no right to be there, but there seemed no special evidence of damage done by them. To Bateman: “ Have you anything to say why you should not be punished ?” Tucker replied that they were no worse than the others. ' Constable Bourke stated that there was a good deal of larrildniam in Temuka, but Bateman was a well-conducted boy. He would have a difficulty In proving any special against individuals, but he would like to have the evidence of Bateman and Tucker as to the others being there. He would let the case stand sis it was if the others admitted being there. P. Carr admitted being at Briscoe’s. He did not do any damage. A. Hooper denied being in the; garden. . He was in the next section. He ukeid.to be sworn, and said that he came up with the others , and. stood talking to - some ladies. Ho then went into Mr Piskie’s section andlooked over the fence. Plaintiff came out and threw some-broken glass over the fence and called witness by another lad’s name. He called him John Spillane. Could not say what kind of glass it was, but thought it was a broken - bottle. Heard some of those about vrj out: ‘‘ Look out for the water.” ", r . To Constable Bourke: Did not throw? the potato, and could not say whO did. There were some women there, bntwitness did not like to give names. flaw Tucker, Prattley, .and Douglas. .Threw a dish-cloth. A young lady pumped some water. Throw the dlsh-doth when the bottle was thrown. Could not exactly say who throw. the water.• Believed all charged were there, and others besides. His Worship commented on the offensive conduct of the accused. They might be proud of it, and perhaps he did not see it in the right light, but he considered it very disgraceful. He was sorry they could not mid out who. throw the potato and the water. He should fine them 10s each, and they would have to pay the damage, and costs of Court amongst them. Briscoe would be allowed 8s expenses. If anything of. the kind occurred again he would be more severe. ALLEGED B BEACH OF LICENSING ACT. W. Johnstone, licensee of the Winchester Hotel, was charged with keeping his premises open after hours, and also with supplying liquor to one Thomas Rainey, he being then in a state of intoxication. Mr Hay appeared for defendant, who pleaded “Not guilty,” • John Greenall, wheelwright, Winchester : Remembered the night of 4th December. He met Thos. Rainey in the Winchester Hotel at abont 9.30. Rainey was perfectly sober at that time. Rainey, Keane, Fawcett, and himself were sitting down. Witness had had a drink earlier iu the evening. When they sat down Rainey seemed all right, bat a little merry. He was quite able to take care of himself. Witness could notice by hia tongue that he had had some drink. Could not call him sober. Just before leaving all had a drink. Wituesa and Rainey had beer. This would be about 10.16. Witness left then. Rainey and witness paid. One of the girls was in charge. The bar was closed. The girl was sitting in the room at the back of the bar, and witness left by . the front door. Saw Rainey afterwards outside. Did not see Rainey attempt to get ou hia horse. Helped later to bring Rainey back. He was unconscious. He died afterwards. By Mr Hay ; There were four playing oribbage. Mr Johnstone’s little girl, about 12 years of age, her brother,l4 years, and the housemaid were limiting on. Two games were played. Rainey had only two drinks while witness was there. Rainey was a well-doing steady man, not addicted to drink. Rainey waa witness’s partner; he played correctly and kept the score. Patting the accident out of the question, would not have said that Rainey waa drunk. He could walk all right. The last thing be asked for waa a watch-key. When the bar waa closed a game was iu progress. When it waa finished the little girl brought drinks at Keane’s request. There was no noise. Mr Jobnstoue was in bed. By Constable Bourke: Witness and Rainey had to pay for the drinks. Walter Fawcett also gave evidence. He saw no sign of liquor ou Rainey. It was close on half-past ten o’clock when they left the hotel. By Mr Hay : When witness left Rainey was thoroughly capable of taking care of himself. He was a mm naturally talkative, but steady. Keaue, who was staying in the house, called for the drinks. By Constable Bourke; Was not told to say Keane called for drinks. Thomas Connelly, jun., farmer, Win-

cheater: Was at Winchester Hotel 6a the night of December 4th at about 10.30, in company with Timothy Oounolly. Entered by the from door. Saw Keane and Rainey there. Timothy Connolly shouted. Thought Rainey had shandy* gad' and Timothy Connolly claret and lemonade. Rainey appeared aU right. When he left Rainey attempted to get on his horse It was restive, and witness held it. When, he got up Rainey lost his seat, and fell over the other side. Witness, in chaff, told him he was drunk, and advised him to stay till morning. Was not serious in giving this advice. Could not say if Rainey was perfectly sober. He seemed as he always did. Rainey did not come back for a drink, but went away while witness was inside the house. Shortly afterwards found'him practically dead on the road. After going back to the house did not have any drinks. By Mr Hay : Met Keane at the door. The door ipay have been opened to let him out. It waq the door leading into a passage. Timothy Connolly lives at Kakahu, about eight miles from Winchester. Believed Mr Johnstone’s boy served tl>e dpinhs, The bar was closed. Rainey got his horse oqt himself. It was a bad tempered horse. Any man would have had a difficulty in mounting it, was in possession of his faculties

By Constable Bonrke: Timothy Connolly stayed at witness’s house that night. Timothy Connolly, farmer, Kakahu: Invited Rainey and others to have a drink. Rainey seemed sober to witness. Rainey asked for raspberry and lemonade, and took olaret and lemonade, like witness. Meant to go home to Kakahu, but stayed with his cousin. Was not asked where we lived. By Mr Hay : The bar was closed. By Constable Bonrke: First saw the light when Keane came out to go to the stable. For the defence, Mr Hay submitted that there was no evidence that Rainey was intoxicated. The test of drunkenness was; “ Was the man in possession of his faculties ?” and if this was so there could be no doubt. Assuming that the last drink had made Rainey drunk, it would not have constituted an offence. The words of Section 146 were: “Sells liquor to a person already iu a state of intoxication.” All the witnesses agreed that Rainey was in possession of his faculties. From Connolly’s evidence it was dear that Rainey got out his horse unassisted. When he came off he kept possession of his animal, and afterwards mounted without assistance. Nothing was known of what happened to cause his death. But for the unfortunate accident there would have been no suggestion of inebriety. Taking other instances: Rainey was playing his game intelligently, and at the last actually Asked for a harmless drink. With regard to the other charge of keeping the house open during prohibited hours, as recorded in Richards v. Shiers, 5 N.Z. Law Reports, no charge could lie against a publican on ; the mere fact 'of keeping bis house open. At ten o’clock the bar was closed. The only other outer door except the kitchen door was closed. The door was only opened to let Keane out. There was absolutely no evidence of the house being open for the sale of liquor. Mr Johnstone himself was ill. He gave his little girl strict instructions to dose the bar and.front door at ten o’clock, and she did so. Any liquor got was by reopening the bar and bringing, it forth, and this was only done at Keane’s request, who was a bona fidd lodger. He asked that the charges be dismissed. Hia Worship did not consider that the charge of supplying liquor to an intoxicated person had been made out. It must be shown that a man is already in a state of intoxication when supplied with the liquor. He desired other rebuttal evidence upon the other charge. Mr Hay called Alexander Johnstone, aged fourteen, son of the licensee of the Winchester Hotel: On December 4th his father, who was ill, retired at about half-past eight, and witness was left op with hia sister. At ten o’clock, following instructions, he closed the bar, drew down the blinds, and put the light out. He also closed the passage door. When anyone wanted to leave witness opened the door for him. Recollected the Connelly’s calling. After they were served let them out and closed the door after them. By Constable Bonrke: Had just let Keane out to go to the stable when the two Connellys ctme up. ' Opened the door to let Greenall out. James Keane, a groom, recollected staying at Mr Johnstone’s house at Winchester. Did so every Tuesday. The bar was closed at ten o’clock. Let himself out by the side door, which was bolted. Just as he let himself out the two Connelly’s came up, had a drink, and left, almost immediately. Rainey was sober. Witness called for the two lots of drink. By Mr Bonrke : Often called for drinks pretty quickly.. The boy was in the passage when witness let himself out. By His Worship : Rainey did not fall off the horse. He palled it round, and landed on the off side. | ;Mr flay quoted other cases bearing upon the charge, a f ter which His Worship dismissed the charge. CIVIL CASES. James Blyth v. W. McLeod—Claim £1 15s/ Judgment for plaintiff by default with coats. Job Brown v. George Hobbs—Claim, £417 s. Mr Snlmond for plaintiff, and Mr White for defendant. This was a case in which evidence aas taken at last court day, plaintiff accepting a nonsuit. The defence then was that the goods were not supplied, and further that the sum of 5s had never been paid on account of a debt, thus bringing it outside of the Statute of Limitations. Mr White contended that the main point was for the plaintiff to prove the actual payment of the sum of 6s; Of this the only evidence offered was that of an entry in a ledger, and Mr Brown’s statement. Mr Salmond recapitulated some of the arguments urged at the last sittings as to the admissibility of evidence upon facts recalled to- a witness by documents or writing. In this case, in which the claim was for less than £2O, the strict law of evidence was not in force. His W orahip was justified iu exercising ordinary common sense and ruling that the entry in

Mr Brown's books, which were regularly kept, wai sufficient evidence of the payment on acccount. If there was a shred of contradictory, evidence against it he would admit that their case was a weak one. After soma further discussion Mr Salmond called George Prattley, storekeeper, Arowhenua, formerly in the employ of plaintiff, gave evidence as to certain sales to defendant in 1888 and 1889. James Harrison also gave evidence as to an entry in the ledger of 5s credited to Mr Hobbs. This would be transferred from the cash book. Henry Gapper, book-keeper to Mr Brown, gave evidence as to making out and rendering certain accounts to Mr Hobbs. Had sent them out fully six time.: within the last 14 months.

Plaintiff gave general evidence as to transactions between himself and defendant. T. Buxton, formerly book-keeper to Mr Brown, gave evidence similar to that at the last hearing of the case. Mr Hobbs’s account was an existing one. It was rendered regularly. After hearing the defence, which was practically a denial of the supply of the g >ods, and of the payment of 5s on account, His Worship gave judgment for defendant, with costs. J. H. Brosnahan v. W. Hopkinsou— Claim £2, for the supply of 40 posts. Plaintiff stated that he had left about 40 posts alongside his section, and the defendant had used them when he had got stuck in a creek with a traction engine. The posts were broken up and spoiled. Could not say if there were 40 posts, but there were about that number. D. Hopkinsou, son of defendant, stated that, only about six posts wore used. They were willow posts and were absolutely useless. They had to get timber elsewhere to carry the engine. H. Hopkinsou gave similar evidence. Judgment for plaintiff for 6s, with costs. The court then rose.