RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuapeka Times, Volume II, Issue 104, 5 February 1870, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

LAWRENCE.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., R.M.) Monday, January 31, 1870. Matthews and Fenwick v: Capstick. Claim of 14s: The amount was paid into Court, and an order was made for the costs. Same v. O'Neil.— Claim of £1. Settled out of Court. Same v. Dale.— Claim of £1 16s. Settled out of Court. Same v. Brosnan. — Claim of £1 16s. Settled out of Court. M'Clusky v. Clarke.— Claim of £2 15s. 6d. Paid into Court, with costs. Same v. M'Crae.— Claim of £8 Bs. 6d. Settled out of Court. SLY GROG SELLING. Robert Grieve was informed against, under sub-section 1 of section 6, and under section 48 of the Licensing Ordinance, for having, on the first day of January, knowingly allowed certain fermented liquors to be sold in his store, at Blue Spur. Mr. Inspector Percy prosecuted, and Mr. Keen (from Mr. Ward's office) defended. A female witness was called, but did not appear. It transpired that she was in the service of the defendant, and as the service of the subpoena was not sufficiently proved, the police decided to proceed with the case without her. John Cranley, sworn, deposed that he was at the Blue Spur on New Year's Day, and was at the store kept by defendant several times during the day. Behind the counter there were two persons — a man and a young woman. He (witness) was asked to drink, which he did. He heard the drinks asked for, and he saw money paid over the counter by the person who called for the drinks. lie saw no spirits served ; bnt he saw lemonade, ale, and claret served. Cross-examined by Mr Keen : There was a counter lunch provided. He partook of it. .Would not swear what the money was paid for. Believed it was for the drinks, but would not swear to it. The person who asked him to drink took lunch, but he (witness) believed that it was for the drinks that the money was paid. Did not see the person who asked for the drinks buy anything else, but he might have done so without witness seeing it. John M 'Bride, publican, Wetherstones, gave similar evidence. Mr. Keen asked whether this closed the case for the prosecution. Mr. Percy replied that he might have to call further evidence if the Bench required it. j Mr. Keen said chat he would not proceed with the defence until assured that the prosecution Avas closed. His Worship said that the prosecution must finally close at some time or another. Mr. Percy said that the case for the prosecution was closed. Mr. Keen submitted that there was no case. Apart from any proof as to the actual sale of the liquor, he contended that two material points in the information had not been proved — Ist, It was alleged that defendant knew that the liquor had been sold, and not a single syllable of evidence had been given in support of that ; and 2nd, it was alleged that the defendant was not duly licensed, — and this had not been shown. He contended that it was essential, in order to obtain a conviction, for the prosecution to prove every material allegation contained in the information, and in this they had most signally failed. He was in a position to offer and urge other matters in defence, but asked for the ruling of the Court upon the points raised, prior to taking up more time. Mr. Percy said, as regarded Mr. Keen's second point, viz., that it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that defendant was unlicensed, he would refer His Worship to the 62nd clause of the Ordinance, which enacts that in all proceedings a person shall be deemed to be unlicensed unless at the hearing he produces his license. His Worship overruled Mr. Keen's second point, and reserved his decision upon the first point till the following day. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1. Police v. Grieve. His Worship was about to give judgment in this case, when Mr. Percy intimated that he desired to withdraw the information. Mr. Keen said that of course he could have no positive objection, but he thought it a very unusual proceeding after a lengthy hearing. His worship granted Mr. Percy leave to withdraw the case. a neighbours' quarrel. A woman named Crey, residing in the vicinity of Wetherstones, was informed against by a female neighbour, who accused her of violent conduct towards her, and of using language the reverse of polite. The usual amount of mutual recrimination was attempted to be indulged in by the parties, but was quickly silenced by His Worship. It appeared (as usual) that "hens" were the primaiy cause of the fall-out Fined 203. and costs, in default, 48 hours imprisonment. The fine was paid. Thursday, 3ri? February. (Before W. L. Simpson, Esq.. R.M., H. Bastings, Esq., J.P., and Alex. Stewart, Esq., J.P.) Grundy v. Cullen and Galloway. — Claim of £5, damages for breach of contract. Mr. Keen (from Mr. Wards office) appeared for plaintiff. The last named defendant, who resides in the district, appeared. The summons which had been sent to the Taieri for service on Mr. Cullen had not been returned. j Mr. Keen said that plenty of time had been given, and it was constantly occuring that when parties at a little distance were sued, the summons was not received back in time. . Mr. Galloway said that he had seen Mr. Cullen the day before, and that up to that time he had not been served. The Bench directed the Clerk to write to the Taieri, relating to the neglect in not returning the summons. Fresh process to issue fr,ee,

Roberts v. Sheath.— Claim of £20, damage alleged to have been sustained to plaintiff by reason of a number of sheep, the property of defendant, entering a rye-grass paddock of plaintiff's, and injuring the mowed and standing crop. Mr. Mouat (from Mr. M'Keay's office) for plaintiff ; and Mr. Keen (from Mr. Ward's office) for defendant, who paid £3 into Court, and pleaded not further indebted. A great deal of evidence was given on both sides ; the chief points in dispute being whether the grass was of special value, being intended for seed ; and whether the rain, to which the crop was exposed for many days after it was cut, had not caused the greater part of the damage. After considerable consultation, the Bench found for the plaintiff— damages £5 10s. in addition to the £3 paid into Court, and costs.