RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 3, Issue 761, 6 May 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

.... ■ , ~», ; MASTERTON THURSDAY. [Before H, S-Wardell, Esq.-R.M.,] Ingram yKibblewhite.—Breach of Dog Registration Act. " : ' The Court questioned whether the proseoutor. was a registrar under .the Act,, and was the proper person to lay the information. Defendant fined Is and costs 7b, in addition to registration .tax, '

• Same y, James : Smith;— Breach Dog Registration Act.—Fined Is and 7s costs. Same v F.Gray,—Breach of Dog Registration Act. Fined Is and 7s costs, Defendant stated that the dog was kept for raMrit.purposesi only, and the Court said

he registration fee would be remitted if he proper certificate of oxempttoti were obtained, . i; ■ ; Same v 6. Young—Breach of Dog Registration Act.—Fined Is and 7? costs,

Sergt, McArdle v A. Elkins,^—Breach Public-house Management Act by supplying liquor on Sunday, May Ist. > Sergt McArdle .deposed that on Sunday, lstMftst.ybetween' 9,3o'and 10'a,m,, he visited the hotel. The bar door was partially closed. He looked, in and saw three men standing in front of the bar, and the barman behind it. Onseeing him the three men cleared out, Witness lifted a glass from the bar, and found it contained brandy- and water, by tasting. ■ In answer to Mr, Bunny:—l saw one man put.a glass down, I did not see what he had been doing with it, He might have tasted it just the same way that I did,, and supplied himself. It is Mr Elkins'. custom, to .have- his bar washed out every Sunday morning,- On the present bocaaion the floor was wet. The barman'is in .'the habit of washing it out. There were a number of unwashed glasses on the bar counter; Mr Bunny submitted that the information must be dismissed, as it had not been proved that the liquor had been either supplied, sold or drunk, He claimed tnat. the defendant was in the habit of strictly obeying the law on his premises.

_ The Court had no hesitation in dismissing the case, the only evidence on' which defendant could be convicted would be his allowing the Sergeant to drink on his premises, This would show the absurd length to which the clause might be construed. He was not, however, disposed to take the strict view which some Magistrates had taken on this clause, and the case would be dismissed, ' Same v John Hicks Corbett.—l. breach af Licensing Act j 2, breach of Publichouse Management Act. Mr Skipper for defendant, The prosecutor withdrew the second charge, ' Mr Skipper asked the Court to excuse personal attendance of defendant, as he was in ill-health.

The charge was that the defendant permitted his barmaid to be employed in his bar before the hour of 11 a.m., contrary to the statute.

. Sergt, McArdle deposed that he-visited the premises on the Ist mat., between 9.30 and 10 a.m. He asked Mr Corbett why he kept his bar open and his barmaid there. He replied that he would do so if he thought proper, The barmaid was handling glasses when witness wont in.

In answer to Mr Skipper. I asked the barmaid what she was doing, and she replied she was not serving : drinks, I saw no liquor sold. There was a young man behind the bar who was a lodger in the house, and who was apparently talking to tho barmaid. Mr Skipper left the caso in the hands of. the Court without comment.

The Court said, to its mind there appeared to be a breach of the precise words of the statute ; but the evidence, however, did not support a conviction. He could not interpret the words of the Act to mean that a housemaid should not go into a bar to clean glasses before 11 a.m. The evidence did not show that the female in question was acting as a barmaid.

Mr Skipper said that the Sergeant had a difficult duty to perform under the Act, and he could not complain of the manner •in which he had exercised it. The fault lay with the Act.

His Worship said his view of the licensing Act provisions was that they 'gave sufficient power to prevent the sale of liquor on Sunday, to persons not entitled to it, but, in neither of the cases heard that day, had such sale of liquor,been proved He would remind all holders of licenses of the stringency of the law with respect to Sunday trading. It had been hold that even the friend of a lodger, his guest in fact, could not be supplied. He did not say this was his view, but if this view were correct, they might congratulate themselves that the legislature was about to sit. His opinion was that, if there were any breach of public decency or symptoms of disorder apparent, the police should interfere. He did not think there should be an undue amount of prying on the part, of the police into a moderate use of refreshment on a Sunday, so long as public order and decency were observed. Notwithstanding this expression of his opinion, he declared that if any case of a breach of the Act were proved, he would not hesitate to inflict such a penalty as would vindicate the law.

Thomas Wagg was charged by Sergeant McArdle with supplying alcoholic liquor on Sunday.

The defendant pleaded that he supplied the liquor to a lodger.

Sergeant McArdle stated the liquor was sold to John Martin, a butcher, and Patterson, the barber, both residents in Masterton. He saw liquor supplied to each of these by Mr Wagg's servant at 10 a.m. on Sunday.

In answer t» Defendant,—Witness was not aware that Patterson was a boarder in his house, or that he had his wife there. Did not know Patterson had a wife.

Zachariah Patterson remembered Sunday Ist ihst, He .was in company with a butcher. They went into the Prince of Wales Hotel. Had asked • the butcher to have a drink. The drinks were served, but the Sergeant came in before they had a chance to drink them, The drink was not paid for, He was boarding at the Hotel, and did not think he would have been served with the drink if thiswas not so, Did not know whether the butcher was lodging at the Hotel. They both came from the back yard. Defendant did not wish to put any questions, as the witness's statement was true,

The Sergeant wished the Court to allow him to withdraw the case, as it had been proved that Patterson was a boarder, and as the batcher was a man who sometimes had a lot of hard work to do on the Sunday mornino, and it might be hard to inflict a fine (or what perhaps was an act of good nature.

His Worship stated that he was glad the Sergeant had taken this course. He would enter a reprimand in the case and dismiss it in accordance with his recommendation. Richard McKenzie for being drunk and disorderly was fined 5s and costs. For damages by breaking windows at the Prince of Wales Hotel, a fine of Is was inflicted, the plaintiff wishing to withdraw the case as the defendant had paid the damage. - ■ H. Bannister v Herbert Jones,-Breach of Rabbit Act. Mr Beard ■ for plaintiff, ,Mr Bunny for defendant. ..

F. G. Moore- stated he was seoretary to the Masterton Rabbit Trustees,- and produced Gazette shewing the constitution of the District, but had not-the Gazette containing the appointment of the present Trustees. He produced the minute book, and various. Inspectors', reports. '"•' ■ Mr Bunny objected; to the.ininutes as evidence, and His (Worship allowed the objection after a short argument between Counsel. • • ■

Henry Bannister- deposed; "• H»; was Inspectorto_the Rabbit; Trustees at'the time the action was commenced.

Mr Bunny asked for proof of this."' ■.. ' : The plaintiff ,was uhablo to produce the document appointing him' Inspector, and concluded he "had lost it, but it was subsequently found among the Court papers, ■ Mr Bunny held' that this was of no value as the document was signed by. Mr StuqtyyjiJ3h»iHi^^

what; and he submitted that they had not yet proof of tlie appointment of the Trustees bisfora the >Mr;.'Beard here.'said he did not want any evidence as to Mr Bannister's appoint■menj.;;W' ■ ' .%.'..'•.: fl, Bsnnister stated he entered Mr Jones'land on 17th' January.and served a notice, This was the first time he>as .'.-.■. there, [At this stage the proceedings were stopped by an unusual commotion in) / the street', which was found to be caused ' :$' by the rushing along of a traction engine:./." fv .which has recently been imported by a ' Masterton citizen.] On the.3rd and 17th ofFeburary he.wentsgain, On the 3rd he found the rabbits' very numerous and very quiet along the back boundary. On • the 17th they were in the;same slate, "■'■( Nothing seemed to have been done to get ■- rid of them. ..... '"

Cross-examined by Mr Bunny: The ■; notice Was signed by three Trustees,, He:;. ' left the notice at the, house with a Mr ,-|. Cook, who was living there. His.-know-,.-ledge of the property was very large. He,, had known it ever since he could walk or ride. Had been over the property twice,-i within the last three months.: Had been v'. : over to look for rabbits first on the; 3rd' February. Knew defendant was bounded ■ tik by Borne 3000 acres of Native, land on one ■' side, and on another by Mr McKenzie,. : - ■''■■ who had some 2000 acres. Did not fake proceedings against McKenzie because he..'; was taking steps in the matter,' .The rab- . bits were as numerous on Mr MoKenzie'i ;,'.'■' land as on Mr Jones', but the former had' most land, Knew no steps were being taken to destroy rabbits on the Native land. Saw no difference on the 17th, Did not wait on Mr Jones and tell him of the state of his property. Had not suggested any steps to be, taken, might have been told to mind his own buaineßß. . If Mr :j: Jones had taken every means to destroy 7 -"'"'' . the rabbits, they would not be so numerous. Had destroyed nearly all- the rabbits on his property. Rabbits would live back in the bush and-do well, without.coming out on the open. Babbits would make for the op'en.if they could.- Where'-, the Maori land joined Mr Jones' it had i been cleared and cropped for some years, '.'.:''' and would not.be so difficult.to deal with as'•-.■' his (the witness) own. Could swear that the notice he served was signed by three of . the Trustees, and addressed to Mr Jones.,' Always visited the place in the day time. He saw numerous.rabbits on Mr Jones' land near Mr Moore's property. He saw rabbits on Mr Moore's property, they were-numerous and very wild, but Mr Moorollhad a man hunting. He could not say whether the rabbits were waiting on Mr J.oneB 1 land till Mr Moore's man went away so that they might go.back• on Mr Moore's land again. They might go to get a feed of grass as there was none on', , Mr Jones' land. The man. was engaged V hunting over Mr Campbell's and Livingstone's land as well; these lands were clear grass land.. Defendant's was mostly bußh. Hardly saw a rabbit, on Mr '; . Campbell's land, but saw several on Mr':' \ Livingstone's land. Took steps' against ..'„'■ Mr Jones as he had not taken steps to ■■■'■" destroy the rabbits.' To Mr Board:—Had walked found the property between Mr MooreVandrMr MoKenzie's boundary, and could see the ' ; ' general state of the land. The rabbits were very numerous. Had served the notice on the 17th January. . Mr Buuny objected that the notice was not served on the defendant according tn the Act-viz,,, personally.

His Worship ruled that if it could be shown that the defendant had received the notice it would be sufficient proof of service under soction 17, but he did not think they oould make a man liable by ../ posting a notice in a conspicuous place, aa „\ under section 18. . \ Mr Beard then called f ■' K Cook, who remembered receiving the notice. He left it upon the tablo in Mr Jones' houae.

E. Wilsone, called, proved the appointment of the Truatoea by producing the gazette, . The plaintiff was non-suited, as the notice had not been served according to the Act. Defendant was allowed 10s personal expenses.

B. Hounslow was fined Is and costs for breach of Dog Registration Act. Rabbit Trustees v Hadfield.- Rates LB 1i 6d. Mr Bunny for plaintiff. Defendant pleaded that the purchase of the land had not been completed till recently, and that the Trustee-in the estate had undertaken to free the property of all liabilities. He admitted he-was the oooupier.

The Court held that this made him the responsible .party, and judgment was given accordingly with costs. '

• Pillar v.lrwin.-This case was argued at last sitting. Judgment for £ls and costs, plaintiffs expenses, and counsel's fee. Leave was given to appeal, Thompson' v Chamberlain Bros.—Debt £fi 17s 2d. Mr Beard for plaintiff, Mr Bunny for defendants, Mr Beard Btated that plaintiff had been carrying on business in Masterton,' had transferred that business to defendants, and then acted as their servant for some months at £3.pnr week. A balance due of this was now claimed; ' ; ''

:Mt Bunny, in reply to the Court, said he admitted uothing of the claim, Mr Thompson stated he had assigned all his property todefendanfo Theassignment was in writing. ■ Mr Bunny Had the deed. Mr Beard called upon the defendants to produce the deed of assignment.' Mr Bunny said he had a lien on it,'and declined to produce it. .'■ ' '• Plaintiff, examined by Mr Beard, stated that he did not owe Mr 'Bunny any money, and ( had not bad any demand made upon him for money in the matter. After considerable argument the court ruled against Mr Bunny,' who produced the deed, which was read by ■ the clerk of the court; ' The plai&tiff^was'submitted to a severe cross-examination as to 1 various accounts by Mr Bunny, and finally the case was adjourned to next court day, to allow the plaintiff, to supply any information desired by defendants with-reference to the accounts, which he was quite willing to do. ■•' •• ',;.'•'

J. Bradley v R. Cockburn.-Wages, £3. £1 10s and costs, 6b, paid into Court. Witness's expenses, £l, were allowed in addition. Masterton Rabbit Trustees v J. Morriaon.—Rates £l3s 4d, Mr Bunny for • plaintiff. Judgment for 17s 6d, and coats. ;i W. I Nathan v Hapeta Ihaia.—Debt, £2 2a 6d. Mr W. G. Beard for. plaintiff. ,*: Judgment summons."-' Order.made for: flk payment. Same v Amos Mnore.—Debt, £ll Bs. Mr W, G, Beard for plaintiff.. Judgment' _, for amount and costs. '"'■■■". ■ Same v William Miller.—Debt, £3 Is 6d. Judgment summons. Order made. : _The Court rose at 10 p.m. Several oivil cases were adjourned to this morning.