RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 386, 29 August 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Friday, 28th Att&tjst. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M., and AlexStewart, Esq., J.P.) Mr. M'Coy applied on behalf of the executors of the late Mrs. George Clark, that the authority given to Mr. Bell to carry on the "Business bo cxfcomiocl tn ■nfiYt. licensing mooting. The Bench askeel Mr. M'Coy to 6how them that they had authority to do so. Mr. M'Coy replied, that there was no express authority, but the Ordinance which gave the Benoh. power to authorise an agenfc of the executors for three months contemplated licensing meetings at intervals of three months, and more injustice might be done by refusing to interfere than by wrongly assuma power, if it was wrongly. The Inspector of Police had mentioned that he would not think it necessary to interfere with Mr. Bell while the matter was subjudice ; therefore an adjournment might answer the purpose of keeping the house open,, as the new Act would probably be soon available. The Bench said they did not see their way to giving the authority applied for., but they would adjourn the case, and Mr. M'Coy would receive notice when it would be again called on. Mr. M'Coy applied for leave of absence for Mr. Gardner, a publican at Manuka Flat, to the next licensing day, and to permit Mr. Kavanagb to carry on the business, as the health of Mrs. Gardner made it necessary for her husband to give up the business. The matter was adjourned to Tuesday next, that the police might have an opportunity of reporting. Mzcliael v. Uocrg-- — Mr- Henderson for the plaintiff, Mr. M'Coy for the defendant. Claim of £5 10s., for impounding off land improperly fenced. Mr. Henderson called John Hogg. Mr. M'Coy objected to this witness being examined, as every question that could be put to him would be objectionable on the ground either that it did not pertain to the issue, and was irrelevant; or that it would tend to expose the witness to the penalty given by the 13th section of the Impounding Ordinance for improperly impounding. After argument, the objection was disallowed. Witness was then asked as to the locality from which ho impounded the cattle. John Michael and Allan Mitchell gave evidence as to the condition of the fences, which they said were not substantial. The former also deposed to the damage he had , suffered. Peter Robertson, deposed as to the impounding of the cattle. Mr. M'Coy contended that the plaintiff was on the horns of a dilemma. If the impounding was such as to render the defendant liable to a penalty his evidence was improperly educed, and should not be made use of. On the other hand, if the impounding was in itself lawful, there was no tort, and the Court would have no jurisdiction to inflict damages. He called Jo'un Hogg, who gave evidence as to the fences, Tvhieh he described aa being much better than the witnesses for the other side had done. This case lasted all day, and judgment was reserved. The application of John Cousins for a slaughtering license was adjourned for an amended report.