Accused was remanded till Tuesday.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 259, 16 January 1873, Page 7

Accused was remanded till Tuesday.

Extended Jurisdiction. (Before Vincent Pyke, Esq., R.M.) Lancaster v. Parsons. — Claim of L 29 6s. 6d., amount of dishonored acceptance. Mr. M'Coy appeared for plaintiff; Mr. Taylor for defendant. Mr. Taylor pleaded — Ist, that defendant did not accept the bill ; 2. id, that part of the consideration for which the bill was given was illegal, tn wit, spirituous liquors ; aud 3rd, that dcf"iidunt was intoxicated when he gave the bill. Mr. M'Coy objected to the plea 3as being contradictory, but was over-ruled, lie then called R. Lancast ir, lately a license I vicMuller at- the Bei'invmt, who* recognised the acceptance (produced). The signaturewas that of defendant, -who he saw write it. ** , [Mr. M'Coy here put in some documents signed by defendant, forthe purpose of compcr'n^the signatures with that' of the accjptanc-j in qn jsHon ] By His Worship : The acceptance was signed in witness' place, and iv his presence. Cross-examined. — Defendant signed the bill at 9 o'clock in the morning, and was j quite sober. It was giveu for an account owing. Some argument ensued between counsel has to the mode of proceedure. Eventually His Worship decided tlut on the two latter pleas, they being affirmative, Mr. Taylor must commence. Mr. Taylor called R. Lancaster, who stated that the account against defendant was a mixed one — part of it was due for an old debt, part for board and lodging, part f-»r beer and grog, and he thought it included some cash lent. All the liquor charged was supplied in sixpenny worths. Pars- ma was quite sober wlipn he signed the acceptance. He had the account before h« signed it. When he gay« the acceDtaace he had been for a few days about witness' hotel, enjoying himself. Cross-examined by Mr. M'Coy -D v fendant lived a mile^and a half from the hotel witness kept. 'He (defendant) was living in the hotel when the liquor was supplied. He was boarding in the hotel on the 9th October. He generally drank

pints of beer— except in the morning, , when he drank brandy. Sometimes he drank brandy and lemonade. By His Worship —About twelve months a^o, defendant was in his (witness',) emp!o*-, harvesting. J.imes Parsons said he had no recollection of signing the acceptance. He* knew nothing of it till the Sunday following the 9th October, when Lancaster said he (witness) had given him a bill for his account. Witness replied, "no fear," Lancaster then said "you have, I had better give you a memorandum of it." On the 9th and 10th October, he (witness was intoxicated., ' Cross-examined— Witness was intoxicated at 9 o'clock on the 7th October, and was'also intoxicated on the Bth. Lanoaster did not give him a receipt. Witness nev^r told Mr Jamison the signature was a forgery. Did not recognise the signature, but would not swear whether it was his, or not. He drank any amount of brandy neat, ancL never took lemonade sit Lancaster's. He did not recollect what he drank on the 9th or 10th October, or the Sunday following. His Worship asked Parsons to write his name on a sheet of paper, which he did. By His Worship: Was drinking at the house a few days, and supposed he boarded and slept there during that time. He was then on the spree. Mr. M'Coy here stated he was instructed that Mr. Taylor had the receipt given to defendant, and asked him to produce it. Mr. Taylor denied having possession of the receipt. Mr. M'Coy proposed to call Mr. Lancaster again, but Mr. Taylor objected to his doing so. His Worship upheld Mr. Taylor's objection. Mr. Taylor submitted that his second plea, viz. , that part of the consideration for which the bill was given was illegal, unier fhe 24 p h Geo. PI, citing Scott v. Gilmore, 3 Taunton, had been substantiated. His Worship : The Act 'quoted does not apply to boarders. If a man lodged in an hotel for a single night, and ran up a grog score, every penny, in his opinion, could be recovered. The Act was intended to prevent men drinking at public bars. • Mr. Taylor continued that it was clear that defendant was not continually a boarder, and to recover plaintiff must prove that such was the case. Mr, M'Coy remarked that the consideration was not illegal, although the publican conld not recover. His Worship said if a man came into court to take advantage of a weak point in an Act, he must prove his case. He had compared the signature just written by defendant with that on the acceptance. The handwriting was the same on the 1 i*er as the former, although it had apparently been written in a different stage of sobriety. It was insinuated on the one hand that the defendant, while in a state of drunkenness, was overcharged ; and on the other that the amount sued for was fairly owing. The existence of the acceptance was prima facie evidence that the account was owing and correct, and it was the duty of defendant to disprove that. Tf affirmative pleas'* were set up for the defence, they must be upheld by evidence. Mr. Taylor said that no one might have witnessed the signing of the acceptance. His Worship : If a man gets drunk, he must incur all the risks a drunken man is liable to. He had no alternative but to give judgment for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed, costs of Court, and professional fee. Mr. Taylor gave notice of appeal. Mr. M'Coy asked, if an appeal were allowed, that sufficient security should be taken for the costs. The Court then adjourned.