RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON.

Waikato Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1565, 15 July 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON.

(Thursday.—Before Mr H. Northcroft, R.M., and Mr S. T. Sedclon, J.P.)

Alleged Assault. Ix the case Potter v. Elliot, the Bench refused jurisdiction, as the action involved a title to property.

Alleged Breach of the Licensing Act. Mr Camming, licensee of the Royal Hotel, was charged on the information •f Constable Murray with permitting drunkeness in his licensed house. ' Mr Hay appeared for the defence, and pleaded not guilty. Constable Murray called. Andrew Browning who deposed that Mr dimming served him with liquor on the evening of the 27th June, about dusk, he (witness) being a prohibited person. He afterwards, on the same night, got drunk in the hotel. In cross-examination witness said it was possible that Mr Cuimning did not know who he was serving as it was almost dark, and the liquor was served through a small window opening into the passage. For the defence, Mr Gumming and his barman, Pascoe, deposed that Browning was not in the hotel at the time mentioned. The defendant furthermore deposed that he did not see Browning in the hotel at all that dcxy, and had given particular instructions to the barman not to allow drunkenness, and to refuse to serve prohibited persons. This was corroborated by Pascoe. Mr Hay contended that defendant clearly had not " permitted " drunkenness, as he had forbade it, and he therefore was not liable under the act. The Bench reserved their decision. A second case of a similar nature was withdrawn, the police agreeing to abide the issue of the first.

Wilful Damage to Property. Elliot v. Potter.— This case, in which plaintiff charged defenddant with wilfully destroyihg a notice board from the paddock in dispate, was withdrawn by mutual agreement without costs.

Civil Oases. Judgment was given for defendant with costs in the case dimming r, Clark, claim £20. Hay v. WIIEELA.K.— CIaim £20, legal charges. Mr Gresham for defendant. Judgment for plaintiff with costs. Scott "and Cox v. D. Gi<EESOtf, —Claim £3 Is 2d. Judgment for amount and costs. __^ __

The new pure cash system now being initiated by G. and C. will crtamly prove a benefit to the public. It bas been a great success in Sydney and Melbourne, and when strictly carried out the customer who buys at an establishment where the goods are marked low to ensure a rapid sale must be a great gainer. G. and C. sell their drapery, millinery, and clothing at such prices for cash as gives the buyer the advantages of a shareholder in a co-operative society, without the risk of being called upon to bear a portion of the loss should the jear's business prove unsatisfactory. Garlick and Cranwell will aim to retain the confidence which the public have hitherto shown them, and are determined to give the pure cash system a fair trial; whether they gamor lose the first year Country buyers on remitting cash with order will be supplied with goods at co-operatve prices ; just the same as though they made apersonal selection. Furnishing goods, such as carpets, floor cloths, bedsteads, bedding and general house furniture, the largest portioH of which is turned out at our own factory, willbe marked at the lowest remunerative prices, and a discount of five per cent, will be allowed to those who pay at the time of purchase. G. and C . having realised the entire value of their stock during tneir'late cash'sale, the present stock is new and cheaply bought.— An inspection inyitecl.— GAßLtpK And Ckanweix, City Hall Fafnishing'Arcade QUeeo s. W cct, Auckland. v , ' - „ J ,