MEYER V. O'LEARY.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 393, 23 September 1874, Page 3

MEYER V. O'LEARY.

(To the Editor.) Sib, — I wish to correct your report of tho case Meyer v. O'Jleary, in fhe Resilient Magistrate's Court last week, viz., that I did not supply Mrs. O'Leary with bottles o£ gin. The fact is, I did supply Mrs. O'LeavyJwLth a few bottles of ale and porter at different times; but find that the one bottle of gin charged for in the bill was got during my temporary absence from the store by her son, after I had refused the same to Mrs. O'Leary. Judgment was given for £2 13s. 6d. and £1 paid into Court : not £2 as you stated, only £1 os. 3d. being deducted. Can you, Sir, inform me under what Act this case comes ? It seems rather inconsistent that a man who pays £10 for a bottle license per annum, according to law, cannot recover the valuej of such goods which is he entitled to sell by his license — especially, when the party confesses indebtedness of the amount sued for. Some time ago I asked a lawyer whether I could sue in Court for similar goods, and he replied, " Certainly, if you have a bottle license ; " and on the strength of this, I sued a party for similar kind of goods, and got judgment for full amount. Now, in the case of O'Leary, judgment is reversed. — I am, &c, P. Metbe. [Our report stated that £1 was paid into Couvfe.— Ed. "T.T."