CHARLESTON.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 816, 25 May 1871, Page 3

CHARLESTON.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COUBT. Friday, Mat 19. (Before C. Broad, Esq., B-.M. ; J. Henry and T. G. Macarthy, Esqs., J.P's.) Behan v. M'Carthy—Claim for £ls, for fifteen bottles of champagne at £1 per bottle. John Behan said: On the night of March 26, there were six or eight men playing cards in my house when M'Carthy came in. M'Carthy was not long in when I went into the bar. I heard some conversation between M'Carthy and a man named Joyce. I was called by M'Carthy to bring some champagne. I brought two bottles in at that time, and afterwards brought in to the amount of fifteen bottles. I brought them all iu to the order of M'Carthy. By the defendant.—There was betting between you and Joyce. "Whichever my barmaid was to shake hands with was to pay for the champagne. You were not the worse of liquor. I did not demand payment. I thought your word was sufficient When seven bottles had been taken into the room, you came into the bar and said to me that " this was a pretty how do you do," and said that 1 should go halves with you. I answered that'' I would not. If the girl was not worth it, knock it off at once." It was between the hours of 12 p.m. and 6 a.m. James Joyce : —I went into Behan't Hotel about seven or eight weeks since. Others and myself were playing cards when M'Carthy came in. It was proposed and agreed to, that whoever the young lady shook hands with was to pay for two bottles of champagne. These were drunk, and the same proposal was again made. This time a case was proposed, but it was thought too much, and two bottles were again agreed upon. The same arrangement was made four or five times, and upon every occasion she shook hands with M'Carthy. M'Carthy appeared to be perfectly sober. By defendant. —It was between you and I that the betting started. James M'Bedmond : On the night referred to I went into Behan's hotel with a friend, to get a bed. There were some parties playing cards. I afterwards went to play cards. I then rose up to go out, and M'Carthy asked me if I was going. I said I would come back again, and when I returned, M'Carthy said that whoever was the best " bower" with the girl ought to shout a bottle of champagne She shook hands with M'Carthy. It took place four or five times, and the girl invariably shook hands with M'Carthy. He said that I was to be his best man at the wedding when it took place, and he also said that he would give me a suit of clothes for the occasion. I went to M'Carthy and told him that he had put the girl to a sufficient test, and that it was time to knock off. He said that it was all right. I do not think that he was drunk. John Kirkpatrick, P. Dempsey, and John M'Grath gave corroborative evidence. Charles M'Carthy, the defendant, gave the following evidence: On the night of March 26th I went into Behan's by myself. There were a party of men there. I was intoxicated at the time. I do not understand how the first champagne came in. On the second occasion, the girl shook hands with me, and said she would pass me on other occasions, which she did not. By the plaintiff: I shouted cham pagne in another house that night. I offered to pay £4 on the day following, and after you furnished me with a bill I offered to pay half. That was before I found out how I had been treated. John Behan recalled stated that he did not agree to go halves with M'Carthy. The defendant called the plaintiff's barmaid who stated: I remember the night of March 26th. The defendant came in after 12 p.m. I remember a man saying that I would shake hands with him before I would with M'Car* thy. M'Carthy agreed to bet 2 bottles of champagne on the question. I shook hands with M'Carthy, and he said he would pay for the champagne if it was £IOO. Joyce lost the bet and M'Carthy gained it. There were 15 bottles brought in. I told M'Carthy that " I could not give my hand

where 1 could not give my heart." I was not prompted by anyone to make M'C&rthy shout the champagne, but I thought ho was the " grcate.-t flat in the room and best able to afford it." M'Carthy was not under the influence of drink. Some of the persons in the room were boarders. M'Carthy came to me afterwards and said le would pay for the champagne, no matter what it cost. Defendant called another witnesp, who stated that, when M'Carthy left her house to the best of her judgment he was drunk and incapable. The defendant addressed the Court and claimed a verdict under the 18th 'section of the " Provincial Licensing Ordinance." The plaintiff said that it seemed as if M'Carthy was inclined to turn informer in the case. Mr Broad said that as far as the tacts of the case were concerned, the Bench had arrived at a conclusion, but there was a question on the point of law raised by the defendant, which would be reserved for the opinion of the Attorney General. The Ordinance referred to by the defendant would be a bar to any action for the recovery of a debt incurred for liqi.or supplied by a publican, but for Act 24 of George 11., Cap. 40 sec. 12, which provides that a publican may recover for liquors supplied when the quantity supplied at one time is of not less value than £l. As all Acts of the Imperial Legislature passed previously to 1840, had the same force in the colonies as in England, it followed that the Ordinance of the Provincial Council was ultra vires, and of no effect. The Bench were inclined to the opinion that the ordinance was inoperative, but as, the question had never before been raised, a case would be stated for the opinion of the Attorney General. Judgment deferred. The Court was then adjourned.