LYTTELTON.

Press, Volume XXIII, Issue 3058, 10 June 1875, Page 3

LYTTELTON.

TOESDAT, JnNB 8. [Before W. Donald, Esq, 8.M.1 Civil Cases—Cleverly v Paterson. Mr H. N. Nalder appeared for plaintiff, and defendant requested to have the case adjourned which application the Bench granted Breach of the Public House Ordinance.—McQuilkin, of the Railway hotel was charged with this offence. McQuilkin stated that he was out, and Mrs McQailkin was cooking at the time the offence was committed. Constable Beck, sworn, said he went in by the back kitchen, and saw four residents in Lyttelton sitting with others, drinking round a table; there was a woman in the bar; there was no disturbance in the house. The Bench inflioted a fine of £5 John Pierce, of the British hotel, was charged with supplying liquor on Sunday, and keeping his house open. Constable Wallace, sworn, said he saw four men go into the Oxford street door of the hotel; he followed them in, and saw them with four drinks in front of the bar; the boy Pierce was drawing drink behind the bar; there was no obstruction to his getting into the hotel, the door being ajar. Cross-examined by Mr Nalder—There are two bars in the house; one is in Oxford street; you have to go through a passage to the bar; there is no bar except in the commercial room, and downstairs in the other part of the house. C. Walters, eworn, said—l live in Rhodes Bay; I was in Lyttelton on Sunday last; four of us went into the British Hotel, I and another went in first; the door was ajar. We had a pint of beer and glass of ginger wine. We had no difficulty in getting to the bar ; there was no one there, but we called out and Mr Pierces son came and drew us our drinks. Whilst we were there the other two came, and one of them, Matthews, called for a pint af beer, but before he could get it Constable Wallace came in. The other man was lodging at Mr Coles' but I did not see bim have my drink or order any. When we came ishore we went up to have a drink, Bultiiude was standing on the wharf; he came up jvitb us; Mr Throp asked us to have a drink. Dross-examined by Mr H. N. Nalder : I live ibout four miles from Lyttelton, and Mr rhrop lived further off; the other man, Mat;hews, also came over with us. Bultitude vas one of the surveyor's staff ; he came up o live in Lyttelton in consequence of cnt--ing his foot a few days ago. The barman cnew mc when I went into the hotel. W. 3ultitude, sworn, said—l remember the 30th >f May; I met Mr Throp, Walters, and Hatthews on the wharf about 10 a.m.; Mr fhrop asked mc to have a drink ; I went up vith him to the British Hotel, I was a little iter them; when I went in there was a lad n the bar. Matthews, Mr Walters, and Mr ?hrop had a drink ; Matthews did not iave a drink ; I called for brandy ; '. did not get any. I did not lotice any dirty glasses on the bar. /RoBS-examined by Mr Nalder—l am workng for Mr Throp on the survey till I hurt ayself. Since I recovered I have been again pith the party, and am working with them low. Mr Nalder contended there was no ase. The police had shown that three out f the four weie travellers, and it was necesary for the convenience of lodgers that the oor should not be kept locked on Sunday. lr Pierce, sworn, said that the room where he bar was was used as a sitting room by the odgers. The sergeant-major said the house lad been very well conducted Bince the , business was started, and he was sorry 0 have had to bring the case forward. !he Bench said that it would dismiss both nformations, the doors of an hotel must be ept open for the convenience of lodgers. Even supposing Rhodes Bay was not quite our miles from the hotel, he thought it ?ould be stretching a point to fine the land3rd for supplying the liquor to the three aen after their coming across the harbor, nd it was evident that no drink had been erved to the fourth. Obstructing the Footpath.—William IcKeever was charged with this offence. It ppeared he had some carcases of sheep hangng 10 inches over the footpath. Dismissed, s laid under the wrong Act, with a strong aution. Cattle Trespass.—Thomas Grange was ined 5s and costs, and — Robinson 5s and ostß, for having cattle straying. Breach of Dog Obdinance.—John lameron, for having an unregistered dog in lis possession, was fined 20s and 4s costs, ohn Hunter was fined for same offence 20s nd 4s costs. Thomas Cathro was accused lso, but the offence was not proved, and the ase was dismissed. R. Dennis, for same {fence, was fined 20s and 4s costs. Mrs inderson was also fined 20s and costs 4s. 'atrick Cain, for same offence, was fined a imilarsum. Wednesday, June 9th (Before W. Donald, Esq, R.M.) Civil Case.—Cleverly v Paterson.' This ras a claim for £55 lis for wages due and ompensation for wrongful dismissal, plaintiff aving been in tbe employ of defendant as master of the brig Pakeha, owned by defenlant. Mr H. N. Nalder appeared for ilaintiff, and Mr B. D. Thomas for defendant. 1 set off of £55 17s 3d was put in, but the Tester part disallowed. After lengthy vidence the Court gave judgment for £7 lis, vith costs £6 ss, disallowing the plaintiff's laim for damages for wrongful dismissal.-