RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 301, 18 July 1868, Page 6

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, Jui/r 10. (Before J. Giles Esqr., E.M.) VAGRANCY. Thomas Scott was charged with being an idle and disorderly person, and with having no lawful visible means of support. Evidence was given of repeated convictions against the prisoner, and also of his general bad character, which abundantly proved the charge. Prisoner was sentenced

to three months' imprisonment with hard labor. LARCENY. Thomas Harper was charged with having on the Bth inst., stolen a keg, the property of Eugene O'Conor; and a second information charged him with obtaining two gallons of beer, the property of Lendrum and Co., on false pretences. The evidence was exactly similar in substance to what we stated in yesterday's issue," and the prisoner was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labor on each charge, the sentences to be concurrent. ILLEGALLY SELLING SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS. Ellen Kennedy was informed against for having, on the sth inst., illegally sold four glasses of liquor at Addison's Flat. Senior Constable Goodall said that on the evening of Sunday, the sth, about half-past 10 o'clock, he met the defendant near her own house at Addison's. Two other constables were with him. They had some conversation with her, and she invited them in to her house to haveadrink,and they went in. The front room is fitted up as the bar of a public house on a small scale, with shelving &c. Witness had brandy, and the other constables brandy and sherry, defendant producing a bottle from under the counter from which she served them. Whilst they were there, a man came out of the back room and said that it was his turn to shout, and they had drinks again. The man who asked them to drink, threw down afive shilling piece and asked for his change, saying he was not going to shout for her. She said that he would at all events shout for some one inside, and he did so. After this the man threw the five shilling piece into defendant's lap and said that made them square, and she said it did. The house was occupied by defendant, and it was not licensed. She was the reputed proprietress. In reply to defendant witness denied that he had asked her to cook, him any ham and eggs, nor to give him any oysters. All he said was, that he would have some ham and eggs with her. There were a lot of empty tins on the shelves in the place. After holding the five shilling piece some time, she put it on the counter again. By the Bench—He did not know what became of the money, he believed it was lying on the counter when he came out. There were bottles on the shelves but he could not say whether they contained liquor, though he believed they did. When defendant put the money back on the counter she did not say anything, the man said that made it square and she said yes. Constable Maguire corroborated the evidence of the previous witness as to the sale. The day after the sale he went to defendant's, and told her she would be summoned if she did not take out a license, when she produced the five shilling piece from one of the shelves, and said that she did not take the money for that there it was. In reply to defendant, witness said that when she served them with drinks she said that she did not sell grog, but merely kept it for her own use. He remembered her sitting on his knee eight months ago, but he did not say that if she would go into the bedroom with him he would make it all right. Defendant was proceeding with this line of examination but the Magistrate ruled it to be irrevalent. To the Bench The man that shouted lived, witness believed, on Addison's, but did not live in defendant's house. Constable O'Mara was called to corroborate the two previous witnesses. Charles Saunders was called for the defence. He said he was a miner, and on the Sunday night was at defendant's house. The police came in and he offered to shout and threw down a five shilling piece. At the time he was the worse for drink. She said that she would not take the money and put it back on the counter, and afterwards on the shelf. The next day the money was lying in the same place where she put it the evening previously, and she insisted on witness taking it which he did and had it still.

By Mr Pranklyn—He had been there five or ten minutes before the police came in. He never slept in her house. He had never paid for drinks in her house in his life but that time. He earned his living by hard work, and there were many who knew it both at Addison's and here. By the Bench—He did not recollect her asking him to shout for any one inside. He did throw the five shilling piece into her lap, but could not say whether he said anything about that squaring it. He was not perfectly sober at the time. There might have been something said that be did not remember now. By Defendant—He was intoxicated

and did not know whether that was a licensed house or not. Defendant denied that she had sold the drinks in question, or that she ever did it. She said the police had a down on her because they could not get what they wanted from her. The Magistrate said if the evidence of the constables was to be believed, there could be little doubt of the case having been proved. The whole pointed to the belief that defendant did mean to sell liquor, and that if she had not been threatened with proceedings Bhe|would not have returned the money There was ne reason to disbelieve the I three constables, and he considered the case proved. The people at Addison's had already been warned, and in future fines must be substantial. The fine iu this ease would be £2O or two months' imprisonment. Inspector Franklyn applied, under the 37th clause of the Act that defendant should be detained till a returm was made on the distress warrant, for if she was allowed to leave the Court she would very likely be away by the first steamer.

The Magistrate made an order to that effect, and the defendant was removed in custody. BREACH OP TIIE LICENSING ORDINANCE. Ann Gallaher, of Addison's Flat, was brought up, charged with the same offence as the last defendant, on the 23rd June last. Senior Constable Goodall proved that on the day in question he was in company with Constable O'Mara, and a woman named Margaret Ashton. The latter complained of being ill from the effects of previous drink, and witness gave her a shilling to get a drink with. She then went into defendant's house, the witness at the time being about twenty yards distant. On her going into the house they came up to the: window, and saw defendant serve her with some kind of liquor, and take something from the counter. Ashton then came outside. Defendant's house is exactly like a public house, and there were shelves completely filled with bottles. She had no license to sell spirits. He gave her a week to take out a license, and after that another week, as she promised to do so, but she did not, and eventually sent him a message that she would not take out a license. Constable O'Mara corroborated the previous witness. Margaret Ashton proved that she got brandy at defendant's house, and put down a shilling on the counter, but did not see defendant take it up. She was then in custody, and being ill from previous drink, Constable Goodall allowed her to go in to defendant's, and gave the shilliug she put down. In reply to defendant, witness said that when she went in she asked defendant for God's sake to give her a drink. Defendant, besides giving her a drink, half filled a lemonade bottle. She put down the shilling at the end of the counter, and defendant might not have seen it. The defendant declared that she never received the money, or knew that it was paid till the constables came in and began searching her place for liquor. She gave Ashton the brandy out of charity, as the latter had the horrors from drink.

The magistrate considered the cir : cumstances differed in some degree from the last, it was not shown that she was in the habit of supplying liquors, nor was there evidence of other people being in the place drinking. Defendant also had had a license and the penalty would therefore be only £5, or one month's imprisonment. Inspector Franklyn said in this case he did not ask for defendant to be detained, and she was allowed to leave the court, the fine to be levied by distress. ALLEGED LAMP BBEAKIXG. Ann O'Donneu was complained against by Eobert Hayne for maliciously and wilfully breaking a lamp, the property of complainant. Mr Pitt for the complainant. Mr Tyler for the.defence. Mrs Hayne stated that her husband kept the Royal Oak. She knew the defendant, Ann O'Donnell. On the morning of Sunday she saw defendant. Her attention was attracted by a stone striking against iron, and it was afterwards ascertained that it struck the lamp iron. She immediately went out of the private door and saw"the defendant. The latter was only a few feet distant, and was in the act of throwing a stone. The night was bright moonlight, and the time was about 1 o'clock in the morning. The stone defendant threw, struck the lamp and broke the glass, after which she immediately ran into her own house. At the time witness saw a man at the threshold of her house. She called out " I've caught you," but defendant made no reply. She distinctly swore it was the defendant. She had no doubt of it whatever.

By Mr Tyler—One pane of the lamp was broken and another was cracked. Defendant was standing about three or four feet from the front door. The Eoyal Oak fronts the river and hers fronts the same way. There were noisy men in the street that night but before this took place, and it was not one of those that broke the lamp. She was inside defendant's house once but she did not call her any improper names on that occasion. Shejfhad never thrown stones at Mrs O'Donnell's place. She was certain that the stone defendant threw broke the lamp. Eobert Hayne proved that the lamp was broken on the night in question. The damage he estimated at 10s. Mr Tyler said that he believed the evidence given to be totally false. Not only wss Mrs O'Doune l ! in bed and asleep at the time, but it would have been impossible for her to break the lamp in the manner alleged. Further, he would show that the lamp was broken by others, and this was a trumped up spiteful charge. A long discussion arose in consequence of Mr Tyler desiring the defendant to make a statement.

Mr Pitt objected as she was defended by counsel and the Bench agreed with him, and the case proceeded. William Dale said he lived near the Royal Oak, and on the night in question heard a noise, and on jumping up saw a party going round the corner, and at the same time heard a noise as of broken glass proceeding from the direction of the Royal Oak. He thought at the time that Mr Hayne's lamp was broken. He knew defendant's house, and from the position, was certain that it was impossible for any one standing at Mrs O'Donnell's door to break the lamp in the manner that it was. By Mr Pitt—The pane of glass broken was not the pane next Mrs O'Donnell's door. If Hayne and his wife had sworn that the pane was that next Mrs O'Donnell's, it was false, for he examined it next day. He heard the voices of drunken people going round the corner. He did not see them. James Hudd, on Sunday morning, heard a stone strike his house, which was three sections from the Royal Oak, and heard some men pass on, and about the same time heard a noise as of glass falling. He saw the lamp the next morning. The pane broken could not have been broken from Mrs O'Donnell's side. By Mr Pitt—He would swear that the pane of glass next Mrs O'Donnell's was not broken. Robert Hayne recalled by Mr Pitt— Had heard the evidence by the last witnesses. If he turned the lamp round it would be almost impossible to put a light into it. The Magistrate said this was a singular case, and one rather difficult to come to a conclusion on. The main question to consider was the probabilities of the case. After going carefully through the evidence he came to the conclusion that it was more probable that the drunken men passing had broken the lamp than that the defendant had come out at that hour of the night, and had throv/n stones in the manner alleged. He should, therefore dismiss the case, with costs. A case, M'Donald v. Sherlock, for abusive language, was dismissed. A number of civil cases were disposed of, but none of the slightest public interest.

MONDAT, July 13. (Before J. Giles, Esq., E. M.) BRT7NK. Jane Bobinson, charged with being drunk, forfeited her bail, through not appearing. Removing Drift-wood from the Beach:—John "Walker was charged with having at the South Spit removed drift wood within one mile of the river Buller, contrary to the regulations recently gazetted. Constable Doris proved that on the 9th inst., he- found the defendant filling a bag with sticks from the beach close to the river mouth, on the South Spit. On being told that he was doing wrong, defendant emptied the wood out again. The Constable said the defendant was a respectable poor man, and that he had no wish to press the case against him, but he had been instructed to keep a lookout, and he had preferred the charge as an example to others. Defendant said that his wife was very unwell and he merely went to get a few sticks to make a fire. The Magistrate said as the proclamation had only been recently promulgated, would only inflict a nominal fine of five shillings this time, but in future, would inflict the full penalty. The defendant paid the fine and was discharged. The perjury case of Leach v. Jolliffe, was further adjourned till next (this) day.

There wore four civil cases, but none *of them were of the slightest public interest.

Tuesday, -July 11. (Before J. Giles, Esq., R. M.) DRUNK. James Moran, for being drunk and disorderly, was fined £l. Patrick llarley, charged with the same oifenco forfeited his bail. ALLEGED DISORDERLY HOUSE. Robert Hayne, landlord of the Royal Oak Hotel, was summoned under the goldfields licensing Act, for having within three months allowed disorderly conduct in his licensed house. Mr Pitt appeared for the defendant, and submitted that the information could not be sustained as there was no specific charge. They were summoned for a period extendiug over three months, no date or specific offence was given, and yet they were under the Act liable to a fine. Inspector Franklyn argued that this was not necessary. The Magistrate did not how any fine could be imposed unless, there was proof of a specific offence. Inspector Franklyn after this expression of opinion from the bench withdrew the information. PEBJURY. Jolliffe v. Leach :—Mr Pitt for the prosecution, Mr Tyler for the defence. This was a charge preferred by the complainant against defendant, for perjury alleged to have been committed in the trial of a case heard at the last District Court. The parties have been engaged in litigation for a long period, but on the occasion in question, defendant recovered a verdict for wages and money lent, when the alleged perjury was committed. Thomas Jolliffe said :—I am a publican residing at Charleston. I was the defendant in a case at the last District Court, in which the present defendant was plaintiff. Amongst other items there claimed by him of me were fourteen weeks wages, at the rate of £G per week, ending April 3rd, 1567. The defendant was examined at the District Court, as a witness on his own behalf. This was on the Bth or 9th of June; before Judge Clark. I heard him give his evidence on that occasion. He was asked if he was absent digging four or five weeks, from the 3rd of April, and he said he was not. I know that during that time he used to leave the place to go digging though I never saw him digging. He was a partner of mine, at the time. He first Avent digging on the 18th of February, to the Five Mile with a man named William Noble. I remember he and Noble took out a miners right at that time, on the same day. He was to come in in the evening, and go out first thing in the morning. He continued mates with William Noble for about a week and then joined William King. On the 27 of February, Defendant told me he was going with King and Hargraves, and he did go with them for I sow him. He continued mates with King some fourteen or fifteen days. The license produced, was my license, and about the 18th of March 1867 it ran out. I did no more business then till the 18th of April, when I took out a fresh license. During that interval I did not carry on any business as a publican. He was not with me from the 18th of February till the 3rd of April. He claimed wages from me during that time as barman. From March to April I and my wife were conducting | another house for a man named Broadbent. My wife rather was conducting the business but I went to stop there. By Mr Tyler:—Leach sued me several times before he sued me in the District Court. On the first occasion in the Eesident Magistrate's Court at Charleston, begot judgment, and a re-hearing was granted. In the District Court I set up a defence and swore to it that I had never engaged him at at all, and that he was a partner of mine, and in the face of that the Judge gave a decision in his favor for £93 odd. I called several witnesses that time as well as giving my own evidence. I heard the Judge give judgment, and heard him say that perjury had been committed by one or the other ; my impression is that he thought I was the perjurer. My counsel on that trial asked defendant if he was digging four or five weeks previous to the 13th of April, and he said no. It is on that, that I now charge him with perjury. The question was not whether he had been away four or five weeks ; the question might have been were you not absent four or five weeks digging during the time you now claim wages. Mr Pitt might have asked him previously whether he was away at the Four Mile at all. I did not hear defendant say he was away. I do not remember whether Mr Pitt -asked him if he was away digging at

any other place. I do not recollect that he admitted that he was away twice digging. lam not positive ; be was in fact, away with Noble and with King ; he was with Ni ble about a week. He went with King on the 27th February. Saw Leach go away. .1 am positive of the date. 1 have remembered the day since. I did mention either Noble" or King's name at the District Court. It was within my knowledge then. I did not give it in evidence then. I swear that on that on that occasion he denied that he had been away four or five weeks. I thought that he would have admitted it. It was necessary for me to prove that he was not wages man. I looked at the date of Leach's miners right before the trial in the District Court. I swore it was the 27th or 28th that he went with King. Defendant was away several times prospecting and working in claims. 1 closed my house on the 18th of March, but did no business. Both defendant and myself were there. He-examined by Mr Pitt—l knew all along that defendant had been away, but it did not occur to me in the i witness box I did not expect he would deny it. Mr Whiteford Clerk ofthe Court, produced the papers referring to the case of Leach v. Jolliffe, heard at the sitting of the District Court. Defendand was sworn then, and gave evidence, and when asked if he was absent for five weeks of the time he claimed wages for he said no.

Cross-examined by Mr Tyler— Defendant said he was away once or twice, or something of that sort. He said he was away digging once, and also that he was away once altogether. William Noble, proved that he knew Leech fifteen or sixteen months ago at Charleston. Witness and he took out miners rights within a day or two of each other, about that time. They worked as mates two and a half or three days, not more, and Leach then went back to Charleston. They worked at the Four-mile, witness saw him at work at Hargraves terrace with King a week or two afterwards, but only knew of him working there two or three days. By Mr Tyler—When defendant worked with witness he walked into Charleston each night, and staid at Jolliffe's he believed.

By Mr Pitt—Leach told witness that he was waiting to square up with Jolliffe. William King proved that in the latter part of February, 1867, he was digging with defendant at a place about two miles from Charleston, about a month, but a week of that time they were not at work in consequence of the Greymouth races. This was about the 17th of March. They sold out about a week after that. By Mr Tyler—They slept in Charleston every night. Defendant slept, witness believed, at Jolliffe's. He did not believe there was a week's work done altogether in the claim. He had seen Leach serving behind the bar at Jolliff's during the month they were mates. By Mr Pitt—Leach sent a wages man in his place two or three days of the time. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Tyler submitted that there was no case of perjury whatever shown. The allegation of perjury was that the defendant had been asked if had he been away four or five weeks, and. that he had sworn he was not. It had not been shown that he was absent such a time, the most that could be shown was sixteen or seventeen days. What defendant stated was true in point of fact, and there was no ground for charging perjury in any way whatever. The whole time that the defendant was mining he stayed at Jolliffe's and slept there. The Magistrate, when the learned Counsel was proceeding with his address, stopped him by saying that he was perfectly satisfied that there was no case of perjury to go to a jury, and he had no hesitation in dismissing the information. Mr Tyler asked if the Bench would offer any expression of opinion as to the defendant being tainted by these proceedings. The Magistrate said he should certainly decline to offer any expression of opinion on a case that had already puzzled a judge of the District Court. Mr Tyler remarked that it was very well known what the judge's opinion was. The defendant was then discharged. crviL CASES. Scott v. Patrick.—Mr Tyler for the plaintiff. This was a claim for £5 toll, alleged to be due to the plaintiff as the licensed holder of a right to impose tolls on the Caledonian Track, by the defendant, who is a packer. The defendant did not deny any of the facts as -to his

horses travelling over the track, but denied the right of .the plaintiff to claim toll, as the timeof his protection had expired. *On reference to the Gazette it appeared that on the 25th of February .last a notice appeared whereby plaintiff was authorised to charge tolls on the track in question for six months from the Ist of January, the sum for a loaded horse being there set down at 3s. Subsequently another notice appeared, raising the toll from 3s to 5s per loaded horse, but saying nothing about any extension of right, and the defendant now submitted that that had lapsed on the 30th of June. Of the £5 claimed, £1 15s had accrued prior to the Ist of July, and this amount was paid into court. Mr Tyler argued that the second notice was, in fact, an unlimited extension of the right to levy toll, and that the plaintiff had a perfect right to claim it.

After some discussion the Magistrate said that it was quite clear that this right expired on the 30th of June. There could I e no doubt that it could not hold good longer than the original ■license. Mr Tyler said even if such was the case, the question came whether any man could avail himself of another's i labor without remunerating him. Even supposing plaintiff held no grant, he had rendered the track passable, and defendant had used it for a length of time for the passage of his loaded horses. During that time he had paid the fees demanded, but now he suddenly refused to do so. The Bench remarked that no doubt he would not have paid, but for the authority contained in the grant. Mr Tyler reminded his worship that no one was entitled to make use of another person's services without remuneration. If he was a grocer and left a pound of sugar at his Worship's house, and his Worship have the benefit, he would be entitled to receive payment for, it although it might not have been; ordered. * The Magistrate asked if Mr Tyler; meant to argue that any person who chose to cut a track in the bush had a right to charge tolls. , Mr Tyler did so mean. In such a. case both parties would be wrong-doers; as against the crown, but if any one availed himself of another's labour notwithstanding that the other was a! trespasser himself, he had a legal right to pay for it. The Magistrate, said suppose he put a bar up, would not any one else have a right to kick it down. The whole question was whether it was legal for any one to charge toll to the public without having a grant empowering him to do so.

After some further argument, the Magistrate said that he did not wish to stop the argument of the learned counsel, but if he expected him to decide that any person had a right te charge tolls on any track or place without a Government grant, authorising their imposition, he was greatly mistaken. He should, therefore, give judgment for the amount paid into court, not allowing anything for tolls claimed on and after July Ist. There were other cases similar to the above brought by Scott against other parties, but all were dismissed as far as the July claims went. A few other unimportant civil cases were disposed of.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CHARLESTON. Moxda-y., Jtjnyl3. (Before C. Broad, Esq R.M.) Henry Fry charged his wife with being drunk and violently assaulting him. The woman, however, had a story of her own, and the case was dismissed. Goldstucker v. Anderson. The plaintiff' claimed from the defendant, who was formerly postmaster here, the sum of £3O, for clerical assistance rendered in the post-office, and stated that he had brought the present action owing to his having failed to recover the amount from the Government, who repudiated Mr Anderson's acts so far as regarded plaintiff's engagement. A statutory declaration made by the defendant before a Justice of the Peace in Dunedin had been sent to the Magistrate and was read in Court, but his Worship declined to receive it as evidence, and gave judgment for the full amount claimed and costs. Drennan and Scanlan v. John M'lvor —This was a re-hearing of an interpleader summons arising out of a seizure made by the bailiff, in a suit of Long and Co. v. Coffey. In the first hearing the plaintiffs sought to establish a title to the property seized by virtue of a bill of sale, but failed mainly, as it appeared, through want of the assistance of counsel. His Worship asked Mr Tyler, who now appearedfor the plaintiff's, whether he was prepared with any fresh evidence.

Mr Tyler said that-he would prove that the sale to the plaintiffs was a bona fide transaction, and that Coffey was not in possession of the property at the tima of the seizure, having left the claim a week before. He called,

Michael Kelly—who said he had been engaged by Drennan on the 2nd June, to work a share on the claim on Brown's terrace, and had been working it> ever since. Coffey was not on the claim when he went there, nor had he been there any time after. Cross-examined by Mr O'Neill— When engaged by Drennan, nothing was said about wages, but he expected to receive the current wages. Dennis Drennan storekeeper, exmined, said he, in conjunction with Scanlan purchased three shares from Coffey, G-ilroy and Flaher on the 18th May for £162, that being the value of goods supplied from December to that date. At first he left the three men on the claim as wages men, but afterwards on the 2nd July he put other two men on in their place. Cross-examined—Theunderstanding was that the shares were to be returned when amount of debt was paid off by the receipt of gold. Agreed to pay Coffey, G-ilroy and Flaher, one shilling a week wages, according to document produced, but had not done so. After agreement was made out went him sslf, and pegged off the claim afresh. For the defence Pat Coffey was called, and said the shares were given to plaintiffs as being the largest creditors to hold as security. Mention was made at the time of Long's account, which was to be paid. Pat Flaher said he put his mark to certain papers, but did not know the contents, or that he was transferring his share, and never asked.

Mr O'Neill submitted that no actual sale had taken place, the bill of sale to plaintiffs being really, when read in conjunction with the agreement, a conditional, not an absolute bill of sale, and as such it was useless because not registered. Mr Tyler pointed out that registration Was only required when the grantor was in apparent possession, which was not the case in this instance, the plaintiffs having clearly taken possession at least a week prior to the bailiff's seizure.

His Worship in giving judgment remarked upon the utility of these interpleader actions, in sifting matters to the bottom. He considered the quesas to the bona fides of the sale to Drennan and Scanlan to be satisfactorily cleared up, and he should order the bailiff to withdraw from possession. Drennan Bros. v. Hanney—Judgment was given for £l2 19s and costs Hunter v. Fenton—The plaintiff Mr Wm. Hunter, sued defendant for £2O damages arising from the detention of a certain horse, which it appeared had wandered into defendant's stable, and there detained, because plaintiff refused to pay £2 for feed &c. Mr Tyler appeared for defendant. Judgment given for one shilling damages, and costs.