Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

ASHBURTON— Friday, Feb. 6. (Before Mr. F. Guinness, R.M.) BREACH OF THE LICENSING ACT. Ageuoro F. Dupuis was charged with having sold one glass of beer on January 31st, he not holding a license to sell fermented liquors. Sergeant Pratt appeared for the prosecution’, and Mr. Branson-for defendant. C. 0. Harrell, clerk of the Licensing Bench gave evidence that accused was not a publican. James McGregor, grocer, in the employment of Friedlander Bros., dcponedjriiKt lie had resided at the boarding-hodfl of - the accused for one week, and left on Tuesday last. Was present on the night of the 31st inst. There were three others present. We played cards in a small sitting room, and the game was for four drinks which I paid for. Dupuis supplied the drinks. I had a cigar, one of the others had a glass of beer, and the others had something to drink. X don’t know what it was. I know beer was supplied to one, as I tasted it. I paid Dupuis 2s. The beer was brought from the next room, in which there was a keg of beer. By Mr. Branson —I can’t swear he drew the beer from the cask—l surmise so. I had two cigars, which I called for. Nothing was said when I paid as to what the payment was for. I gave Dupuis aLS note, and got L4lßs. in change. I ordered in the beerfor the person who was supplied with it, and I paid for it before the person for whom I ordered it returned to the room. The payment was made before the beer was brought in, the other two drinks may have been beer, but I don’t know for certain. The man who had the beer had it after it was paid for. Felix Thomas, clerk—On the 31st inst. was residing at Dupuis’, and slept there. Saw the hist witness there. He and three others were playing a four-handed game of cards. I saw aLS note paid by the last witness, and L 4 18s. given in change. The payment was made for drinks, and the last witness said to one of the plavers —“ What are you going to drink? Your drink is paid for, .and you might as well have it.” After it was brought in the last witness drank some of it. I saw the beer drawn in the room beyond the one they w r cre playing ir. I saw a cask ofjbeer in the room ; and I saw Dupuis go in there and take the beer out. Could not swear he took it out of the cask. Saw last witness receive the change. By Mr. Branson—The money was paid after the drinks were brought in, the glass of beer was brought in before the money was paid. lam the informant in this case. I have not lived at Dupuis’ for any length of time. I only stayed there one night before, about 8 mouths ago. I never stopped there a fortnight. I have paid my lodging. I have gone round to the publicans and asked them to support me in laying informations. I call myself a clerk. I call the position of an informant as honorable as for you to defend a case. I have had cases like this before. I was engaged in this business in Victoria. I get a L 5 note for the business in this case. The Government pay me, and I get expenses from the publicans. I call myself a public prosecutor. lam not a member of the Civil Service. Mr. Branson said that the evidence showed that as the only drink stated to be sold was a glass of beer, which was brought in after the money was paid, there could not be shown any intention on the part of defendant to take money for drinks, but for cigars. The evidence of the last witness was not to be considered as trustworthy. His occupation, if it could be so called, was an infamous one, and the testimony of the first witness was to the effect that the beer was brought in after the payment, .and the goods supplied being two glasses of cordials andwhich accounted for the payment of the 2s. The charge laid was for having sold one glass of beer, and therefore there was no evidence to substantiate the information. He would ask for a dismissal. The Magistrate said ho would take evidence A. Dupuis, sworn, said—On the night in question I took orders for a glass of ginger wine and lemonade, one of sarsaparilla and lemonade, and two cigars, and . charged 2s. for it. After giving the \ change I went back to the room, and one of the men said there was another drink wanted, and I gave a glass of beer, but made no charge for it. lam not in the habit of charging for beer. By Sergeant Pratt—l don’t sell cigars for less than 6d. each. Don’t recollect ever selling cigars for less. In the case of any persons playing cards for drinks, I don’t charge for beer as a rule. By the Bench—Do you ever, in case beer is supplied, charge for it ? Witnesg—J don’t charge for the beer. I count it in the other drinks His Worship said the evidence prqvei that four persons had played cards for drinks ; and it was shown that there had ; been tantamount to three drinks brought in, and one subsequently, and it wag a . question whether tins last one was tp be reckoned. The time which l> a d elapsed between the payment of the 2s. and the supply of the last drink was of no coq? sequence, and he considered defendant convicted. Mr. Branson wished his Worship to stale whether he found his verdict upon the supply of the four drinks, or for the glass of beer. His Worship said he considered the 2s. was paid for four drinks, and as there was another case against defendant he would take it now. 0. 0. Hurrell repeated his former evi : dence. Felix Thomas deponed—l was at Dupuis' on Monday, Feb. 2nd, at ton minutes past nine. A young man named Tennant was with mo, and we wont into tho back room where Dupuis keeps (ho drinks. Defendant was in the room. I saw glasses in the room, and a shelf, and a cask of beer. I called for a cigar, and Tennant called for a glass of beer. I gave Dupuis a twoshilling piece, and got a shilling change. By Mr. Branson—l asked tho publicans in town to assist me with travelling expenses to put down sly grog selling. I don’t stay long in any place, only as long as I have business on as an informer. Publicans give me what they like. I make no particular charges for professional services. John Tennant, laborer, deponed—l know last witness. Was in his company on Monday night last in Dupuis’. We went into a little room in the back of the house. There were some men playing cards there. Dupuis was there and supplied me with a glass of beer. The last witness paid for it. Ho paid Is. for the beer and two cigars. By Mr. Branson—l did not know last witness was an informer. I did not assist in laying the information. I have never gone by any other name than Tennant. His Worship considered the case clearly proved. In the first case defendant would be fined L2O and' costs. He would refuse to allow cqsts for a public informer, as lie considered Government " might fine] so:q§ other moans of detecting This kind of thing. In tho second case tho fine would also be L2O and costs. Mr. Branson asked his Worship to state a case in writing on the first verdict, and gave notice of appeal, on the ground that the 2s. was paid for the cigars cordials and that the whole intentioWfcf Dupuis was that the 2s. paid by M‘Gregor had nothing to do with the beer supplied. A A CLOSED ACCOUNT. * Shepherd v. Frazer.—Claim, L 25. Charles Shepherd, contractor, sworn, deponed lie had received a cheque from Jas. Frazer, which ho had presented for payment, and had been told by the Bank the ; account was closed. Judgment for plaintiff with L2 costs.

THE TWO “NEWSMEN.” Ivess v. "Weeks—3s. paid into Court. Joseph Ivess, sworn, deponed, that the sum of IGs. ICd. was due t > him for papers supplied. By Mr. Branson—l charged the firm in the first case I brought, as 1 thought both were equally interested, and I subsequently charged Mr, Weeks. The paper was sent for a portion of the time to Mr. Weeks’ private house, and sometimes to the office. I think it. was delivered for about a month at his Irons i and then to the office. The runner told me that it was Mr. Weeks’ desire to have it taken to the office. F. Ferryman, commission agent, depined that he had applied to Mr. Weeks for payment of 12s. for subscription to the “ Mail ” in July last, and Mr. Weeks paid him without giving any notice to discontinue the paper. Jas. Hepl urn, runner fur the “ Mail,” gave evidence as to the delivery of the “ Ma'l ” at the “ Gu irdiaa ” office. By Mr. Bransor —The previous runner gave me instructions to leave it there. Mr. Ivess thou read the notice published in the “Mail” as to discontinuing subscriptions. By Mr. Branson —I am not sufficiently acquainted with the law to know whether such a notice compels people to pay if they do not give notice. It is a usual kind of notice to put in a paper. I stopped Mr. Weeks’ paper for the same reason as Ido “ other bad payers.” Mr. Branson for the defence called H. J. Weeks, sworn—l am a newspaper proprietor. I -was a subscriber to the “Mail.” I paid 12s. for my subscription up to June 30th, and I received the paper for a few weeks after that date, when its deliver}’ suddenly ceased, and it was not delivered either at my house or the office until the “ Guardian ” started on September 27th. I gave no orders for it to be left on our account, and I looked upon it as an exchange paper, it was delivered to the employees of the establishment. I refused to pay this bill because we had an unpaid contra account against Mr. Ivess. By plaintiff—l never gave orders to John Charles Fisher, late newspaper runner, to change the place of delivery of the paper from ,my private house to the “ Guardian ” office. A collector called upon me for payment of an account, and I claimed a contra account. I c:up swear there was an interval daring which the “Mail” was not received. I did not send the “ Guardian” in exchange as you should have applied for it. Mr Ivess made an elaborate appeal to the Court for a judgment. His Worship said it was clear that the paper had been supplied for a certain period. But it appeared that there had recently been a hiatus. The non-delivery had been for some four or five weeks. The defendant had, upon the prcsentaiiou of the accountf only questioned so far as a contra account was concerned. He would give judgment for the amount claimed, less 3s. paid into Court, and the price of the paper during the period of non-delivery, with costs. A DISPUTED HEN. Higgins v. Gardiner. —Claim for return of three horses and a double furrow plough, of the value of L 75. Mr. Branson for plaintiff, Mr. Harris for defendant. Mr. Crisp gave evidence as to a document having been shown to him, which purported to show a sale of the goods by defendant to plaintiff, the said sale-note being signed by defendant. Michael Higgins, the plaintiff, deponed he was a laborer. Had been in the employ of Air. Gardiner. Had in my possession a document signed in my presence by defendant. I got it from Mr. Crisp, and I took it to Mr. Gardiner for his signature. I last had it in ray hand a week ago*. I saw Gardiner at his stables, to horses, and I produced the document: He snatched it out of my hand. We had a struggle for the possession of it, and Gardiner said he had a receipt in his pocket. I found the two portions the document produced on the ground after - - wards. By Mr. Harris —The struggle took place about 11 o’clock. Gardiner refused to give me the horses. 1 showed my receipt for them, and the struggle then took place, and the receipt was destroyed during the scuffle. After 1 picked up the two pieces of paper, Gardiner told me he had the receipt in his pocket. Mr. Taylor and two others were present. I cannot read, but can swear that the two pieces are portions of the document. Mr. Branson said that the evidence was sufficient to establish a case of fraud. Mr. Harris contended his right to put his client in the witness-box before the fraud question was decided upon. James Gardiner, faring! - , dgponed — Defendant came to my place on January 30th, and said he was not going to work any longer. Tie said he wanted the horses, and after a scuffle he said some docupient had bpen destroyed. I saw the pieces on the ground afterwards, but toqk iio notice of them. I did not snatch any paper out of his Impel, nor tell him I had a Receipt in my pockpt. By Mr. Branson—He said ho had a document, but did not produce it. I did pot see any document. Ho picked up the pieces of paper off the ground and said the receipt had been destroyed. There were several pieces of paper on the ground. After argument his Worship said he could not say fraud had taken place, but would admit secondary evidence. E. G. Crisp, recalled, said he could recognise the torn portions of paper as parts of a" receipt drawn by him on Oct. 13th for LSO, purchase money of three horses and a doublp-furrdw plough bought by Hio-frins from Gardiner. Gave it to Si ggips, and ho brought it back abqut an hour afterwards with Gardiner's signature jittapbecl. ' By Mi’, Harris—-1 nave no doubt of the signature on the receipt being Gardiner’s. I ’know no more of the transactions further than that I drew the receipt up at Higgins’ request. M- Higgins, recalled —I paid the money to Gardner, and ho gave me the receipt. I paid him in cash. I had the horses in my possession, and was working them. When I gave Gardiner the LSO he said, “ These are your horses,” and added that the LSO was as good as LSOO to him at the time, and that ho would give me a good present after harvest. He previously told nie he was pressed for money. I said that if he gave me security over a team of horses I would lot him have LSO. I was due about L2O for wages by Gardiner at the same time as I gave him the money. The value of the horses was about L 23, L 23, and L3O, respectively. If sold now they would bring about L4O each, but I am no judge. Two of the horses are about twelve years old, and another about six. They are light draught horses. The two old ones are worth about L2O each, and the six-ycai - -old about L 25. The plough is worth about Ll2. I lin'd the horses out, and their hire would be worth about L2 a week. By Mr. Harris —Have been with Mr. Gardiner since Christmas. Gardiner told me be was pushed fur money. I was frightened lie was going through the Court. He asked me for LSO, and I said he should have it if he gave me horses as security. I never got delivery of them. I saw Mr. Gardiner last Friday, and wanted to get my money and horses, and told me he hadn’t the money to pay me. '■Event to Mr. O’Reilly with him, and he dsfeitl he would give me a cheque which ' would be all right in a month. I told Gardiner I would take LIOO to settle. I have -worked for Gardiner about two years and a month. 1 think he owes me about LGO for wages. The sale at Dromore was before I paid the LSO. Gardiner settled up with me in June, arid I paid him the LSO in October. Jeremiah M'Carthy, laborer, deponed to

knowing tlio three horses mentioned in the bill of sale, and valued them at L7O. By Mr. Harris—l don’t buy or sell horses myself. The horses are good and staunch. Mr. Harris said ho was prepared to show evidence that the horses had never been sold, and the supposed document was a misrepresentation. The advance of the L 59 was acknowledged by defendant ; but the action was brought in a wrong form. He called Mr. James Gardiner—Plaintiff has been working for me for some time. In October last I received LSO from plaintiff, it was a loan, and I gave him security over three horses, and was to repay Irina on March 13ih next, the money was a loan and not for a purchase of the horses. I never gave him thorses, nor did he ever ask for them. The horses are still in my possession. He demanded his wages last week, and I could not th.cn pay him. He said he would have the horses. He went with me to Mr. O’Reilly’s office, to try and arrange the matter, and he agred to accept LIOO, hut wanted it paid at once. By Mr. Branson—l was sued by two men for some LiO, and lie knew of it, and offered me the LSO. I was not at the time on the verge of bankrupty. There was a stipulation in the agreement as to the repayment of the money in March next. I only gave him a receipt for the LSO. I have offered to settle with plaintiff, and to p.ay him this week. My- sale a Dromore was on June sth, and I paid him up about a week afterwards, and I then agreed with him for L2 a week to go on again. Win. Taylor, deponed—Was present when plaintiff and defendant had a squabble, and Higgins was very excited, and remarked that defendant had agreed to pay him 20 percent, for the money ho owed him. Ho told mo lie had a lien over the horses. One of the horses is worth about LlO, another L 25 or L3O, and the third one say L4O. Wm. Wilcox, laborer, said Higgins told him he had nothing to do with the horses, and all he wanted was his money. Considered the horses worth-L4O each for two, and LSO for the other. Mr. Wilkie gave evidence as to the value of the horses being L 35 for two, and L 45 for another. Horses had increased in value since the sale. Counsel addressed the Bench, and Mr. Harris submitted the action should have been brought for the LSO lent and interest. Mr. Branson argued that the defendant had actually sold the horses, and the plaintiff was entitled to take delivery of them at once. Seeing that the intention of the document given was a mortgage, plaintiff was entitled to seize as mortgagee at once. His Worship said the question to decide was the intention at the time of giving the receipt. It was evident a clear and absolute sale had been made, ard the decision would be for the plaintiff to have the horses handed over to him, with costs Lo 7s. The case was important to the public, and it would bo well for people to be careful of what papers they signed. A WAGES CLAIM. Higgins v. Gardiner. —Claim for wages, L 49 10s. Mr. Branson for plaintiff, Mr. Harris for defendant. The claim was admitted, excepting an item for seven weeks’ wages at L 3 a week, which defendant said should be L2 per week John Bradley, laborer, said he had been working at Westerfield in company with plaintiff, and the wages paid there by Gardiner were to be 10s. per day. Plaintiff, sworn, said he was engaged at L2 per week in June last, and was to get LOs. per day during harvest. Defendant, sworn, said plaintiff had been engaged, wet and dry, at L2 per week, to work right through the harvest. Judgment for L 49 10s., and costs L 5 Bs. The Court then adjourned.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AG18800207.2.14

Bibliographic details

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 58, 7 February 1880

Word Count
3,453

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 58, 7 February 1880

  1. New formats

    Papers Past now contains more than just newspapers. Use these links to navigate to other kinds of materials.

  2. Hierarchy

    These links will always show you how deep you are in the collection. Click them to get a broader view of the items you're currently viewing.

  3. Search

    Enter names, places, or other keywords that you're curious about here. We'll look for them in the fulltext of millions of articles.

  4. Search

    Browsed to an interesting page? Click here to search within the item you're currently viewing, or start a new search.

  5. Search facets

    Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.

  6. View selection

    Switch between images of the original document and text transcriptions and outlines you can cut and paste.

  7. Tools

    Print, save, zoom in and more.

  8. Explore

    If you'd rather just browse through documents, click here to find titles and issues from particular dates and geographic regions.

  9. Need more help?

    The "Help" link will show you different tips for each page on the site, so click here often as you explore the site.

Working