RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LA WHENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 105, 12 February 1870, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LA WHENCE.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., R.M.) Monday, 7th February.

LARCENY. Regina v. Hards alias Soldier Jim. — John Cayill charged the accused with having, a few days since, stolen a pair of trousers and a pair bf boots from his tent. The evidence given was conclusive, and the prisoner having pleaded guilty, was sentenced by his Worship to three months imprisonment with hard labour. The prisoner stated that he was drunk when he committed the offence, which he very much regretted.

SLY-GROG SELLING. Police Vi Grieve. — Robert Grieve was charged, on the information of Constable Henderson with having on the Ist of January sold fermented liquor in his store at the Blue Spur in quantities less than those allowed to be sold by holders of a bottle license —the defendant being at the time the holder of a bottle license. Mr. Inspector Percy prosecuted, and Mr. Keen and Mr. Mouat defended. The defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr. Keen took several exceptions to the information citing authorities iv support of bis "views. They were, however,

overruled by iho lionch, an especial note being taken of the following*: — "That the information being laid under subsection 2 of section VI. discloses no offence against that section, nor yet indeed agaiust any portion of the Ordinance as a whole ; the fact being that although the sub-section referred to specifics the quantities which may be sold under a bottle license, it provides no penalty for selling in other quantities, and does not refer to any other section containing or not containing a pqnal clause." The evidence given was exactly the same as in the. last case, which our readers will remember was withdrawn, and having been Already published would now be 'superfluous. Two other .witnesses were called, but their evidence was not [ material Jane Foster, a servant in the employ of the defendant, was called but did not appear. In the former case she had been subpoened, and did not appear, the service of the summons not being sufficient. Mr. Keen now called his Worship's attention to the XI II. section of the Justice of Peace Act, which provides that no witness shall be compelled to attend unless previoulsy tendered his or her reasonable expenses. His Worship concurred that this must be done, but commented severely upon such a line of defence being adopted. He had never heard of wiDnesses being kept out of the way by such a shallow pretext before. Doubtless it was law, but it would avail nothing, and was only putting the police, and in fact all parties, to useless trouble. Case adjourned for a week. On the application of Mr. Keea, a rehearing of the case Boulton v. the Executors of Griffin was granted for next Monday. It appeared that since the hearing it had become apparent that Mr. Boulton was due the estate a considerable sum of money— a fact which was not previously known to the executors. Bathgate v. M'lntosh. — This was an action in which John Bathgate, as Trustee in Bankruptcy, sought to recover two head of cattle, or their value, £30. The allegations were that at the time of insolvency of defendant's brother, Allan M'lntosh, the defendant had in his custody, order, or disposition, certain cattle which were really the property of the bankrupt. That the Supreme Court had ordered these cattle to be given up ; and that the agent of the plaintiff had. not been able to obtain possession of the two head now sued for. Mr. Mouat appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Keen for the defendant, who pleaded a general denial. Mr. Keen applied for an adjournment, ixi support of which he had fixed an affidavit, setting forth that the matter of the action was now under the consideration of the Supreme Court, and he urged that, such being the case, it was not competent for this Court to proceed j also, that certain documents necessary for the defence were now in Dunedin, in support of applications which were pending in the Supreme Court. His Worship said he should proceed, but would grant an adjournment after the case for plaintiff was closed. Nine witnesses were examined for the plaintiff. Their evidence went to show that Allan M'lntosh, the bankrupt, a butcher and storekeeper in Munro's, had all along had cattle, but whether his own or not none of the witnesses could say with any degree of certainty. The defendant was called and stated that three years ago he sold to his brother (the defendant) the cattle, forming tho subject of this action, amongst others, in all eight head. He swore positively that it Wcis a bona fide transaction, and that the consideration money was actually paid to him in hard cash by his brother. His detailed amount of his transaction in cattle was very cloudy, and utterly impossible to report with any degree of accuracy.

Duncan Campbell being called, stated that he had drawn the sale notes of these cattle some three years ago, and that he then understood that tho sale was simply as security for a debt which existed between the brothers.

The witnesses were not cross-examined to any extent, Mr. Keen intimating that he intended calling several of them specially for the defence, and as he was going to ask for an adjournment, he did not care in any way to open the defendant's case.

On the application of Mr. Keen the case was adjourned for a week.

Geeves v. Sutherland. — Settled out of Courtv