THE COURTS.

Tuapeka Times, Volume II, Issue 103, 29 January 1870, Page 5

THE COURTS.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., R.M.) Monday, 24th Januaby. sly-grog selling. Police v. Harris. — James Harris was informed againßt by the police for having sold spirituous liquor in his store on Monday, the 17th inßt., without being properly licensed so to do. Mr. Inspector Percy prosecuted, and Mr. Keen (from Mr. Ward's office) defended. Constable Henderson deposed to having seen five men come out of Harris's store on the night in question — one was drunk, and his companions had great difficulty in getting him away. Three witnesses were called, who had been in the store on the occasion referred to, but they all swore that although

liquor was supplied to them, it was not paid for. The evidence occupied a con- j siderable time, but as it all turned upon the above point, it is not worth reporting j vn extenso. Case dismissed. Police v. Harris. — James Harris was further charged with allowing a drunken person to remain in his store on the evening of the 17th inst (he being the holder of a bottle license), contrary to the provisions of the 39th clause of the Licenses Ordinance. The fact of a drunken man : being for some time in the shop, was fully proved by the police — and indeed was not denied by the defendant. For the defence, Mr. Keen proved, by several witnesses as also in cross-examina-tion of those produced for the crown,' that the person who was drank entered the store with his mate on business ; his mate being sober, and that he waited while Harris made out a bill, in which they were privately concerned, and which they were compelled to get that night, as one of them was leaving the district the following morning. Further, that although the man was drunk, he was simply laughing, and not annoying any one ; and that Harris did his best to get him away from the place with his companions, all of whom were sober. Case dismissed. Galloway v. Grundy. — This was a claim of £3 5s for service of a mare, and 5s groom's fee. The .defendant pleaded that a contract had been entered into, and further, that plaintiff was not the owner of the horse, and consequently not entitled to sue. Plaintiff stated that he was part owner, and had verbal authority from his partner to sue. It appeared that all the advertisements were in the name of Mr. Cullen only, and that plaintiff had travelled with the horse as groom. Under the circumstances his Worship held that plaintiff was entitled to the 5s groomage. Verdict therefore for five shillings and costs.