MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXVIII, Issue 7103, 15 February 1907, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBURTON—FRIDAY.

(Before Mr T. G. Day S.M.)

TUB LIQUOB LAWI,

William Bushell was charged with ordering liquor in another person's name, without giving the name of the person for whons the liqnor was ordered.

Defendant pleaded not guilty. T. W. Tayler, Clerk of Court, produced a notice from J. Hole and Co. for a quantity of beer sent to W. Morcan.

His Wor«hip said the document before him had lo reference to Bushel!.

Sergeant Fouhy said that in a ptevicus caee the defendant had said he had ordered the beer for Morcan. Given an adjournment, he conld get evidence from Timaru.

His Worßhip said in all cases he must have proof of the facts. In future he would not allow any adjournments, and would dismiss the oases.

William Morcan said he lived next door to defendant, and on January 4 he gave defendant Jl to get him liquor, which he duly got. His Worship said the only person who could prove that tbs order had not been properly given was the representative of Hole and Co.

After farther discussion between the Bonoh and the police as to the production of evidence as to orders given for liqnor, the case wbb adjourned till Maroh 22.

Walter Mouldey, Christohurob, was charged with delivering to George Bales, a resident of the Ashburton no-license district, a package containing port wine, without labelling it, as required by the liquor laws. The same defendant was further charged with failing to send th* requisite notice to the Clerk of the Court.

Defendant pleaded guilty to both charges. He B&id the wine was sold over the counter, to be delivered at the Christchnroh railway station. He knew the man lived at Ashbarton. He thought that when it beoame Bale's property, his firm's responsibility finished with it.

His Worship said the information was for delivery to apertjon residing in the district. It waa not delivered to a person reaiding in the district according to circumstances but delivered to a person in Christohuroh. That information did not lie. Defendant was aware that the liquor was coming into the district and committed a breach in not sending notice to the Clerk. The delivery must take place in district to makethe defendant liable on the first information. That was a reasonable construction. The information for delivery would be dismissed. In regard to failure to label, His Worship regarded that as a technical offence and inflioted a fine of 4Os and costs.

Frank Moroan waa charged with ordering liquor without giving the name of the person for whom the liquor wm for. Mr Crisp appeared for the defendant and pleaded not guilty. Defendant said he bad ordered some beer from Chertsey for a man named Price. Price lent him a trap to go for the beer. He told the publican that the beer waff for Ashburton, but failed to tell him it was for another man, Witness made no money orer the transaction,

His Worship said a curious point arose in this ease-—a purchase of liquor over the counter did not require an order. Hia Worship held that the section did not cover a sale over the counter. He would like to gee the section legally argued. Mr Crisp said that to commit an offence under the eectioD, a man muat break the whole of the seotion. It was an actual Bale oot an order.

His Worship said any omission to do part of an aot rendered a person liable. In reply to the Bench, defendant said that he told March, the publican at Ohertsey, that the liquor was for himself. Hia Worship said he was of opinion that the defendant had committed a breach. The case was slightly different from a direct sale over the counter. If there had been a direot sale to defendant he oonld have refused to answer any quest:ons put by March. Defendant would be fined 40s aad costs. A week's time was allowed for payment. A MAINTENANCE ORDER. Andrew Sturgeon was charged with failing t6 provide for hie three children in the Christoharoh Industrial Receiving Home. Mr Acland (For defendant) said the htte? took rip the position that us the phildren wpre his, if put under his control, he would maintain them. His Worship eaid the children muat have been put in the Hr-me fojf some good reason.

Defendant paid he was not able to conhi? bnte to the children in the Home.

After cross-examination by Sergeant Fouby, His Worship made an order tbat defendant should pay 3a a week towards the maintenance of each child. DRUNJCENNISS. Two men who had arrived by tbe previous •vening's train from Christchuroh in a drunken state were each fined 10s or twentyfoar hoars' imprisonment in default. ALLEGES B3SEBTION. Flora Allan Chalmers uned James ChalcseV» for inainfcananoe on the grounds of deEortiou, complainant alleging that" she had to leave her home on account of defendant's conduct.

Mr Acland appeared for the oomplainant, ard Mr Kennedy for the defendant. After hearing evidence for the complainant, Hiß Wf rship said there was not suffioi- J ent evidenoe to justify the making of an order, and the information would be dismissed. CIVIL OABES. In the cases of D. Miller and Co. (Mr Upham) v. James Tait, claim/.£6 3s 2d, and earae v George Tait, claim Jjra 12s 6d, iuflgsne'ut was given for plaintiffs by default. William Moree (Mr Buchanan) sued Francis Sinolair Shearer (Mr Aoland), for JB2 3s 6d, for shearing work done. Mr Buchanan, for the plaintiff, said although theolaim was small, and a portion of it, JBl 18s 2d, had bsen paid into Court, leaving about 5s owing, on it rested the prinoiple whether in certain districts shearers should be paid £1 per hundred or 17s. As the industrial agreement was not in existence between the parties, the question was what was the usual rate in the district.

After plaintifiV evidence had been heard, Mr Acland taid neither party belonged to the asiooiated Union. He submitted that there WBB no clause in the award for dirty eheep. In an ordinary case, no claim could be set up for dagging. la the case of very dirty sheep, special at rangementa could be made.

Hia Worship held that ho could not go behind the shearing agreement, which had all the force of an award. Judgment was for the amount paid into Court.