DISTRICT COURT, WESTPORT.

Westport Times, Volume VI, Issue 965, 26 April 1872, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT, WESTPORT.

Wednesday, April 24. (Before His Honor Judge Harvey.) disputed sectiox cabe. John Stitt v. Timothy Gallagher. This was an appeal action brought by Mr John Stitt against Mr Timothy Gallagher for the recovery of a sectiou at Reefton. The particulars of the case taken in the first instance at the Warden's Court at Reefton, were so fully given in our columns two weeks ago that it is unnecessary to recapitulate the full circumstances. Mr Button appeared for the appellant and Mr Pitt for the respondent Mr Pitt argued at the opening of the case that the appellant's notice was faulty from not having set out the minute of the Warden's order as given in the decision of the case. His Honor overruled the objection. Mr Pitt then produced a copy of the "Warden's notes as taken in the Warden's Court which was thereupon accepted by Mr Button, and both gentlemen addressed the Curt. Mr Button contended that the appellant must be shown to have had either no business license, or in some way to have failed to comply with the Goldfields The fact ol any one getting protection for t"he 1 section from the Warden did not affect the title of the person in possession. It had been shown that Ryan was a tenant, and was in possession all the time on behalf of Stitt and no other a hat Ryan had a business license ha<i ■ also been shown, though there was no direct pioof of that on the notes produced. The inference must bo that all had business licenses or the Warden would not have entertained the casr« as between the parties, but the Warden in this case must have overlooked the circumstance that the tenant represented the landlord. Mr Pitt showed that Ryan had, wheu first questioned by Gallagher as to the occupation of the section, dis- | claimed any connection with, or ini terest in, any or title to the , section, and therefore it was that the action was brought before the Warden as against Stitt. He maint lined that the Regulations never intended or admitted of such a. tenaney of one shilling per week merely for speculative occupation. His Honor held that it was a perfectly legal title, and if anyone choose to take up a whole square, holding sufficient business licenses to protect the same, and having tenants also sufficient on each section, he was ju-tified in doing so, and the properties would be legally his. Mr Pitt: It may be desirable to

allow such a course, but does the law ] allow it? His Honor: There is nothing against it. Mr Button replied, pointing out that nothing had be*»n adduced to show that Stitt was in illegal possession, or that his tenant had left the ground for twenty-four hours. His Honor: I think the judgment of the Warden canuot stand. I hold that Mr Stitt was in actual possession of the section by his tenant liyau. Then comes the question—Can anyone come into a title by the mere gift of the tenant ? 1 hold not, in this case. Ryan said he did not claim the ground, but that did not amount to his saying that the respondent might take it. The Warden's decision must be reversed, as the occupation by the tenant for the landlord was a bona fide and beneficial one. I take it for granted that Ryan had a business license, but even if he had not, I question whether it would affect the case. The costs allowed were—Costs of Court £4 14s, professional costs £5 ss, two witnesses, 59 miles, at Is per mile, and 5 davs each, at 10s per day £lO lis ; total £2O 17s. BANKRUPTCY CASES. Neville Bull applied for his order of discharge. There being no opposition and the report of the Trustee favorable, the order was granted. The application of Ebenezer Gothard was similarly dealt with. . » ; RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT. ; Wednesday, Apeil 24. ! (Before J. Giles, Esq., R.M.) i DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. Win. Paterson, Charles Williams. and John Ferguson were each fined » ten shillings for this offence,-with the t alternative of twenty hours imuriaon- . ment. The fine was paid in each oi ; the cases. t ASSAULT. Ann Connelly was charged with hav- ' ing committed an assault on Michael Gilda, with intent to do him previous r bodily harm. On the application of Serjeant Kiely, the case was remandec 1 until Monday next. BRKACH OF LICRNSING ACT. Timothy Sheahan was charged wit! i having committed a breach of tht f Nelson Goldfields Licensing; Act, 18b'8 in that he, on the 21st instant, did uu s lawfully permit a game of chance tc y be played in his hotel. Magistrate: Do you admit the r charge ?

Defendant: I admit it, but would like the case to be gone into. Magistrate : You must either plead guilty or not guilty. Defendant: Tnen I must plead not guilty, in order that it may be heard. The Clerk of the Court produced a record of the defendant's publican's licence. Wm. Stratford sworn : I know the defendant. I was in hie public house on the morning of the 21st inst. Between twelve midnight and five in the morning I was playing cards with a Mr Scott, a girl called Maggie, and another girl whose name 1 do not know. I think we played seven games of Euchre altogether. We played only for drinks. The drinks came in and I paid for them I did not see defendant until after we were done playing. By d Pendant: I know a man named Lawrence. I asked him to have a drink. I had known him for some time. I knew Scott also by having worked for him in Wanganui. There was no special meeting or appointment made by us. We simply played the game of Euchre in the ordinary way. When I lost I shouted for them. I recollect going out that evening. Lawrence went with me. We went out intending to go to the bouse at the back. Lawrence did not tell me he was living at the back of the hotel, neither did I say to any one that I intended to stay with Lawrence. There was no other person in company with us. Magistrate: I cannot see how these questions are relevant I hope you will confine yourself tor' the matter before the Court. Margaret Ryan, sworn: I am a dance-girl, and have been in the defendant's employ for four years. On the morning of the 2lst instant, Stratford, the last witness, and I played cards along with a Mr Scott and a girl named Kate Fisher. We played for drinks. I received a five-pound note, out of which payment was taken for the last, five drinks M 'he change, £4s 17s b'd, I received from defendant and handed to Stratford. By Defendant: Nothing in particular led to the piayingof the game of cards. William Henry Scott gave similar evidence as to the card playing, stating that nothing was said, on sitting down, abjut playing for drinks or anything else; Magistrate: Have you any witnesses for the defence, or anything to say in answer to the < h irge ? Defendant: I nave no witnesses, but I desire to speak to the charge. 1 am sorry to say 1 have had more to do with law during my residence in Westport than during my lifetime previous. It is uvist unpleasant for me to have to appear in Court. Unfortunately for me I am iu a public business which is not my choice. Circumstances now iudd n.o to it, though it is repulsive to my taste and to my wishes. In the conducting of my business however it is my desire to do faithfully unto all, and every care and watchfulness is exercised by me in doing,

as is contemplated by the legislature. I regret the circumstance, but have always considered that, as it ij the practice everywhere, there was no harm in permitting a game of cards, provided there was no gambling in connection with it. I have always diacountenanced gambling, but the mere playing of cards or throwing of dice I have, like all others, permitted. I trust you will see fit to dismiss the case. Magistrate: It is a little out of place to assume a high moral tone. There is no necessity for any particularly high moral ground being taken in reference to what is a legitimate call, ing. It is not for mo either to enter into the question whether any game of cards is good or bad. It is upon the plain matter of fact of whether these things are allowed by law that I have to treat. I may know such games are practiseH, and so long as no information is laid no penalty is inflicted ; but when charges of this kind come before me I have to do as the law directs. Sui'h games are expressly forbidden by the Act, under a penalty not exceeding £3O. In this case there is nothing particularly to aggravate and nothing to mitigate. Tou will be fined £lO and costs.