R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 6, Issue 1691, 21 May 1884, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

OAETEETON-TiJESD'AY.

[Before H. "K ".WXrdE£3;M;, B. •Boys and."VY., Boom, J.P.'b,]

■'Constable BobertvDaVby'lv Adam Miller—breach ofLicensing let, 1881, "by "selling to'AuTuriier on :the,llth Mayi. being, a. Sunday;/one \ gl|ssibf beer, Mr Sandilandsiappeared for the defendant,' The evidence for the prose? cution failed to prove a sale to Turner and the icase was dismissed. A similar charge against the samei defendant .was by consent of the Court'.; ', .Constable Darby v Charles Defendant was charged with furious , riding in the public street, Defendant in defence asserted he' was only going at a "hard canter." The. evidence clearly showed ; that the case was one of furious riding, and the Court inflicted a fine of 20s or .48 hours' hard labor, ■;'■ - •■■•■ ■-■■• ;. " ; "-

J. J; Freeth.vW. L, Kotherham. This was a case in which the Clerk of the Court charged the' defendant with a breach/of the Stamp Act, 1883, section 73, by having iii December;last drawn an order for the paymentcr 1 five, pounds, and did at .the time of, dewing the order, fail to affix the necessary; one penny adhesive stamp as stamp duty thereon. .:..-...,; \ ••■' ■-

Mr Beard appeared for : the defeh-' dant and said' on behalf of his client lie must plead guilty, but as the order was drawn out to; let his- (defendant's) employer the amount due to the perr son in whose favor the order was drawn, there. wa3 no intentioij ;pn the ,part o£ the defendant to defraud the revenue,'.; '■.'■ }.. ',".' . ..;...',-. ''

Li The Court expressed its approval of .the case having |ieey,braughtbefore it, as, in this 'particular.case,;in- consequence of the drawer !, havirig'failed ; to; stamp the order' with the- necessary stamp, the person in whosb'favor the' order was drawn, had been kept : ont of his wages [for three or four months, owing to the fact that .the; order in question hot having' beta' stamped he could not produce it'iri Court as evidence. In was well that, it should be generally known that art the payment of any sum of money foiist' be ■stamped at the time .'the .oriier \vai drawn, [as it could only be stamped afterwards if produced in; Coiirtjpbn payment of the necessary a fine which in no case was less thai 15. In the present case the defendant would be fined 20s and costs,;37s. , Robert and M. Davis v, W. JV Lawrence. Judgment summons '£& :12s. Defendant ordered to.lpay in seven days or fourteen days' imprison-. ment. ,• , '. ' '--i;,.

Lan Anderson and'A, Clifton v Lewis Nix. Claim £441755 d. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff, Mr Beard for defendant, .Tina was a claim on'h contract for felling scrub. Tho case occupied, the'. Court some- hours;* •''•The', evidence showed that the contract had not been completed, and.the.plaintiff was nonsuited with costs, , : i '■''."'

Eobert Butler v W. Wilde and others. Claim £lO lGs sd', Judgment for plaintiff. . • ' :• • ; Several other cases on the list were adjourned.