EHRENFRIED V. BUTLER.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 93, 26 January 1872, Page 3

EHRENFRIED V. BUTLER.

To the Editor o£ the Thames Guardian'. Sir, —As an observer in tlic Ilesidcnt Magistrate’s Court on tlic llUh instant, I could not help remarking in the case, Ehrenfried v. Butler. The aspect the case assumed at the adjournment of the Court —at that hour his Worship left the Court accompanied by both solicitors and plaintiff. Judge my surprise on returning to the Court again to hear of the defendant being debarred from calling any witnesses on his behalf as to the quality of the beer or otherwise ; and would like to know how his Worship could possibly ascertain damages for the plaintiff in the absence of any witnesses being called for defendant —although about 13 in number were present to prove as to quality of same. As one who seeks fair play, I do certainly say a ease involving so much time and expense, in justice to the defendant and the public as well, the merits of the case should have openly been discussed before any judgment should have been given, as it would have served as a criterion for others in future. —I am, &c., Ax OBSERVER. [We think our correspondent is in error in stating that the lt.M. declined to hear any evidence for the defence. What his Worship said was that evidence as “ to the quality of the beer was not” admissahle in the form of action which was brought, and we believe his Worship’s ruling was correct. -Ed.]