RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CHARLESTON.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 208, 31 March 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CHARLESTON.

(Before Chas. Broad, Esq., R.M.) Friday, March 27. Mr Sturt, one of the proprietors of the Casino, was charged with a breach of the Licensing Act, in selling liquors after hours. Constables M'Ardle and Rhodes gave evidence in support of the charge. In reply, the defendant called Edward Drury, who stated there were only four persons in the bar when the police entered ; that he saw no drinking in, and had asked for a drink ten minutes before and been refused, as it was over hours.

Constable M'Ardle recalled—To defendant. The door was not locked. To the Bench—Could not swear to seeing anyone drinking. Information dismissed, with a caution. George Carter, of the Q. C. E. Hotel, was charged with a similar offence, and the same being proved to the satisfaction of the Bench by Constables M'Ardle and O'Mara, a fine of £2 was inflicted.

An information laid against Patrick Hannon for assault was withdrawn by Mr O'Neill. J

Kennedy and Heighway v. James Hennelly. —This was a claim of £ll for eleven bottles of champagne. Mr Kennedy stated that defendant and Mr Davies ordered sundry bottles of champagne at a certain farewell supper party given not very long ago, and that he had. never been paid. Defendant had ordered seven bottles.

Defendant said he had told plaintiff it was a subscription affair, and he had afterwards paid his share to Mr Jones. He denied having ordered more than six bottles.

Mr Jones being called said defendant as well as several others had paid him their shares, and he had tendered the amount to Mr Kennedy,. who declined to receive it.

Judgment for £7, including the 13a. paid into court. Henderson v. Anderson. —Mr Johnston, on behalf of the trustees, objected to the summons as being informal.

The objection, however, was shown to be invalid, and Mr D. Henderson having proved the debt, judgment was given for the amount of £25 15s and coats.

■Deon v. Abraham Webber, trading ruuder the names of " .Richardson and "Webber."—Abel Webber said he appeared as the summons bad been served upon him, but ho knew nothing either of the plaintiff or Richardson, The noise of the machine prevented his hearing all the baililf said. The plaintiff said there was a mistake, the summons had been served on •the wrong man. The bailiff said he had asked present -defendant if his name was Abraham Webber, and he replied " iTes." The magistrate 'ordered the summons to be returned into court for proper service. Mr Johnston, on behalf of Charles Jenkins, applied for a summons against Foy to be further eidarged to sth April. Granted.