Thursday, Jan. 27.

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

Thursday, Jan. 27.

(Before W. L. Simpson, .Esq., K.M.j SLY-GROG SELLING. William M'Nickle was informed against by Constable Henderson for committing this offence on the 15th inst. Constable Coniyns prosecuted, and Mr. Mouat (from the office of Mr. M'Keay) defended. Constable Henderson stated that he

had subpoened two witnesses to prove the selling. % _ Mr. Mouat stated that it might save time if he said at once that under the 65th section of the Ordinance no purchaser could bo called upon to answer tho question, "Did you pay ?" because if he replied in the affirmative he would criminate himself — the 65th section constituting a purchase a penal offence. Hugh M'Kee, dairyman, sworn, deposed — Know Mr. M'Nickle. Was in his store perhaps on the 15th — won't swear. Don't recollect whether Andrews was there. He may have been. Am sometimes there with him. Swear I' can't say if I was there on the 15th. Can't say if I drank there on the 15th. May have done so, but don't remember. Was last in Mr. M'Nickles store yesterday. Last time I was there with Andrew's we had a drink. No one paid for it. I saw no money paid for it. John Craddock— l live at M'Nickles, M'Nickle is my son-in-law. I do nothing at present. I have property and live on it. Sometimes I assist in. the store if I see them busy. I pay for my board, and for everything that I have. I remember the 15th. I was very little in the store on that day. Sometimes lam there a good deal, and sometimes not. I sold nothing in the store that day but a stick of tobacco. I served no liquor. I saw none served. I saw none paid for. I saw none drank. I saw Mr. Fyffe behind the counter that day. Richard Andrews, farrier, deposed I know M'Nickle. I remember the 15th inst. Was that day with M'Kee in M'Nickle's store. Fyffe was there, and he told us he had bought the business, and as we were customers he would shout for us. He gave us a small bottle of ale. M'Kee drew the cork, and we drank it. It was not paid for. It was given by Fyffe. I told you this before. I did not tell you that we paid for it. Case dismissed. Miller v. Anderson. — In this case, Mr. Walter Miller (for whom Mr. Copland appeared) sued for £10 damages caused to his fences by defendant's pigs. The case was proved, and his Worship gave judgment for £5 with costs, and £2 expenses of three witnesses. O'Leary v. Cowie. — Claim of £6, damage done by defendant's horse wandering into plaintiff's oat crop. Mr. Keen (from Mr. Ward's office) for plaintiff. Verdict for £3 and costs. Same v. ' Wootton. — A similar case. Claim, £4 103. Verdict for £2 10s. and costs. Keen v. Parker. — Claim of £7 on dishonoured promissory note. Mr. Mouat (from Mr. M'Keay's office) for plaintiff. Verdict for amount claimed, with costs. . Executors of Griffin v. Boulton. — Claim of £3 18s. Id. Debt admitted. Boulton v. M'Donald and Halley (executors of Griffin). — Mr. Mouat (from Mr.M'Keay's office) for plaintiff; and Mr. Keen (from Mr. Ward's office) for defendants. Claim of £46 4s. for goods supplied, and for board and lodging for a boy. Mr. Keen moved for a non-suit, on the ground that no bill of particulars had been served with the summons. His Worship having examined the summons, said that the application must be granted. Mr. Mouat was heard in reply ; and on the consent of all parties, the case was adjourned for a week, to enable a bill of particulars to be furnished to the Court and to the defendants. The Court then adjourned. The following is the judgment declared by Mr. Warden Simpson on Monday last in the case Morrison and Evans v. Campbell : — Ist. — Find that the defendant applied for a tail-race on the 28th October, 1868. 2nd. — Find that the defendant did not falsely and fraudulently make a declaration before the Warden that tho ground had been worked out and notices posted for said tail-race in conformity with the Mining Regulations on 10th November, 1868 3rd — Find that the defendant did not, as required by the Regulations, specify time required for the construction of said tail-race ; nor did he give all the notices required by the Regulations ; but it has not been shown that the defendant failed to mark out the ground and post the notices as required by law. ' 4th. — Find for the defendant. The Warden is therefore of opinion that the failure by the defendant to give notice to the plaintiffs and others who were interested in the construction of the said tail-race as applied for, and entitled to be considered so interested by the defendant as to necessitate notification in terms of regulation to be given to him of his intention to construct said tail-race ha 3 rendered the proceedings in relation to the application of 28th -October, 1868, for said tail-race invalid, and the certificate which issued thereon null. The Warden, therefore, grants that part of plaintiffs prayer, in which he asks for cancellation of the certificate which issued on application dated 28 October, 1868, with costs of Court.