RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 378, 1 August 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. LAWRENCE.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) ! Fbidax, 3 1st Jxjit. Police v. Sinclair. — James Sinclair was charged with being drunk -and disorderly in a public place, to wit, on the Waitahuna road, on the 30th ult. Accused was found by Constable Evans lying drunk and insensible near the Halfway House Hotel. He had a bottle of brandy in his pocket. He had to be taken to the lock -up in a cart. He had been a short time a<jo charged with lunacy, brought on by drink, and Mr. Inspector Thompson feared that he was relapsing, though he had then promised to abstain from drink in future. Fined 405. ; in default, three days imprisonment. Hughanx. Kean. — Thomas Hughan, Crown Lands Banger, charged the defendant with being in unauthorised possession of section 23, -block VIII., Tuapeka East, which is Crown lands. The defendant had: a hut on the land, had ploughed from two to three acres, and had erected fencing. He had applied for an agricultural lease of the hind, but had been refused. William Rattray corroborated the evidence of the last witness. He had also applied for the land, and been refused, The defendant raid he had a certificate for a residence area on this place. This, however, would only entitle Mm to occupy one acre. His Worship said that this offence was one ■wbicli lie believed -was frequently committed, though he had always warned persons against it. The penalty which might be inflicted was £50, and this did not afterwards give any right, to the land. The present case was not n very gross one, and he would only inflict the small penalty of 205., and costs of Court, os. Gd. ; but if any other case was brought before him, the offender innst expect to bo jmvh more severely punished. Arch. M'Pherson applied for a slaughtering license. Granted. Meyer v. M'Rae. — Judgment was given in this case. On the 22nd July goods were selected and ordered bj the ifefon Lint, and laid aside for him ; but lie had only taken away a packet of tacks, which were paid for at the time. The amount of all the goods ordered on that tlate was "over £10. There was no actual receipt and delivery of the rest of the goods, and his Worship thought the purchase of tho tacks was a. separate purchase. a"d not part of the other tran^aciions on the same date". It therefore could not bring those other' transactions outside the Statute of Frauds. The point, however, was a nice one. As to goods ordered but not taken away on other dates, the amount on any one date beiug under £10, he would give judgment for tho3e items. Judgment for the plaintiff for £10 IGs. Gd. ; costs of Court, 28s. ; professional cost, 21s. Mr. M'Coy for plaintiff ; Mr. Henderson for the defendant.