Resident Magistrate's Court.

Clutha Leader, Volume II, Issue 87, 9 March 1876, Page 5

Resident Magistrate's Court.

Balclutha, March Bth 1376. LICENSING COURT. J. P. Maitland, Esq., R.M., 3". G. Smith, Ead., J. P., R. Grigor, Esq., J. P., and J. S. Pillans) Esq., J. P., were the presiding Commissioners. Thomas Keenan applied for a license to the Temperance Hotel, Balclutha.

Mr .T. H. Harris, with him Mr W. Taylor, appeared in support of the application. In his address to tlie Bench, Mr Harris pointed out that it six years* since a new license had been granted to any house, and that as tho township had increased so had the population. He was prepared to prove that\although the temperance hotels had been patronised very liberally, still, they had for the most part been' occupied by boarders, and that these boarders had ih. many instances left the temperance hotels and gone to live at the other licensed hotels in order to be where they could obtain the ordinary necessaries such as beer, &c. Instances have occurred during the past week in which parties.had applied to Mr Keenan for rooms,- and when they found out that no licence was granted to the hotel, they immediately took away their luggage aud left. As an instance of the trade this house had been doing, he mentioned the fact .that in one day about two months ago, Mr Keenan had supplied dinner to 2GO pei-sons, and gave stabling, accommodation to upwards of 100 horses. He submitted that the requirements of this township, and even of tho Colony, should not be dictated by the Good Templars, and although- he' admitted that, they, either individually or collectively, could eat and drink what they liked, still, they should not dictate to others as to what they should eat or drink, and ho believed that if the town contained 50,000 persons and only one licensed house, that tho Good Templars would even then oppose the granting an additional license. '■ Ho also pointed out that the house occupies a position which in all probability would be one of the most important ia the town .ship, as being adjacent to the new railway station. He mentioned the fact that tlie house contained 24 good, bedrooms,.- and. had also good stabliug and paddock accommodation, and Mr Keenan, had outlayed something like £2000 on improvements connected with tlie.building.

Mr Taylor presented a petition signed by a number of the leading inhabitants. Ho pointed out that the number of convictions -for drunkenness in the Clutha district was much less than- in former' years, according to statistics published, and that, 'therefore, the licensing of an extra house could hot be considered as pi*om®ting the evil.

Mr Harris further pointed out that no objection from ony party had been received to the ap. plication of Mr Keenan.

The Bench retired to consider the application, and on their return the Chairman said that the Court after having carefully considered the case, had, after some hesitation, decided to grant a license, believing that 'a want .was felt in the town -for another licensed house, and this was borne out by the number.of signatures v hich'had been affixed to tho . petition presented to the Court in favov of the applicant.

Mr Harris made application for the transfer of a license held by the late Joseph Murphy, to his widow, at Kait'augata, which was readily granted, tho police stating that few houses in the country were conducted upon a better principle. ,

Mr Taylor applied for permission for. Mrs Gari v oway to carry on the license of the Alexandra Hotel, Port Molyneux, for three months. The police objected to this application, so far as regards Mrs Garroway, and the Bench granted tbe pormission to Mr James Paterson, one of the trustee's.

(Bufoifc J. P.lMaitlan'd, Esq.. itil!)

William Pyne and Clinton Lyons, appeared to answer a charge preferred against them for negligent driving on Friday, 3rd March.

Seargent Patrick Fhmegan deposed that on Friday night after the"arrival of the 8 o'clock train, Clinton Lyoits laid information against William. Pyne, for running his horse against the one he was driving, and endeavoring to -push him over the bank.

John Gow stated that he 'was riding with Pyne on the box seat of the coach. Pyne's coach was ahead of Lyons, and heard the two coaches strike 'together; afterwards he heard someone cry out that the other coach waß upset. Pyne's horses were very fresh and he appeared to bo holding his horses in. They had no ocpasion to drive so fast; there was plenty of room for two coaches to pass one another.

Richard Horrobin, bus conductor to MrLyons, stated -that he was at the station on tho 3rd inst. The two coaches started at the same time, and Pyne drove his horses against those of Lyons, and nearly upset the coach Lyons was driving. Both drivers \?ere on their right side. At the place where thecollision took place there was room for three vehicles to pass. Gilbert; M'Dougall was an inside passenger 1 by Lyons coach, on Friday the 3rd inst.. There was a collision between the horses, and he had to get out and ride in Pyne's coach. Ho assisted to put Lyon's coach up on to "the road again. His Worship- said that he believed this was an occurrence which arose from the great competition between vehicles plying for hire between the 'station and tho township.' Occurences of this kind were fraught with much danger, and he would advise the Town Council if they had the power to limit the number of conveyances running to and from the station. " He considered there was negligence on the part of the dependent Pyne, and this being his first offence, he should inflict a penalty of 20s and costs. At the same time he took the opportunity of cautioning drivers and others that if any other cases occurred in which they were brought before the Court he would not visit the offencs with so light a penalty as in the present instance. " . M 'DONALD V; SMITH. Action to recover ou a dishonored bill £43 9s Bd. ■_.'-..' Mr Taylor "for the plaintiff . '. . Judgement for plaintiff, with 25s -costs and professional fees. , . --• , . CAMERON V. 'WATTS. This. was an information for an indictable offence,- for forcibly . ' taking possession of the B&iitfay Hbteli, Stirling, on the 22nd February, being at thai ;time in the possession of -, an agent of Messrs Neill and Boyd, of Dunedin, . and also foi- .retaining possession 'of the same., y Mr Deniston, of Dunedin for the plaintiff. Mr" Taylor for the defendent. v, 7 )-'.'- , , ; .. • . : John Boyd of.the firm of Neill and Boyd, -of, Dunedin,, examined by Mr Denistqii— Stated that* the informant; Peter Cameron was sent; by "his:firm to;* take possession, of ■ j&o .Kailway Hotel, • : Stirling^ then in the occupation of thb defendent, Mr Watts'. This was' in ■ the" moi|th:'iof October" or November.- He had frequbnt cpnversations-,-with the. defendent who. seemed* quite, satisfied, with their ; being in possession/ * He received a , letter from- defendent asking him?to abstain from* selling the property, and .they did ; so ; v V'on,'the,; 4th' February last they received ayreqiiest from-. Watt to seipallhis ihtei'estin the ; property. -jTliis/ salee they advertised 'subsequently;' v ; ;> -5,7', A--'Cross examined by Mr T^ylpr— They pai^renti td Mrs Basset, tlie lessor, >tlirbu'gnVher^sqlßitpj for one year'and arhalf.' This'wais 'fnv'^rent^dxiei' before and.during the. time-of , their -possession;, • -J p ' , [Peter Camerbn.ex^ined; ;4epOsf4.ythi-ftj,.,heV. wis a itdreman' in the,iinploy of Messrs NeilFand' Boyd. .'-.- Hetook'goss'ess'ou of the* R&lway Hotel,' "■• atStirling jon, the Ist jNp'vember, Watts%as pre-- : . sent the oyening of ; tlie same day;, Heboid V^atts, '■ , he had^ been sent ? db wnyto' ,take - possessionyon.* behalf of Messrs; sNeilandßoydrVVTko defendant^ . made no ob3ectio.n > lmt,6n i .thep(»ntraryr scented} '. well satisfied. 'He remained in. poss^sibn^untiiV the morning Jof the 22nd Febnl&ry; HVsqld^oodl i during the-tiihe. jio j was .th§rerf:def endant.; took? ; no; part in, the.: management of the^liouse^^ahd,:;. • rie'yerV'maile 'any^bjectioi* tb c his 1 ' b^irig the^J ' : Early: bn : ltlie' morning •: of ?the* 2^d:CpPebru'ary.* : .^Wktts galled him into .the^^comm^r^i^robm^aM-j ; Vuim'l*.'e Had gb L Va'UOT jer ;ma^^ . plaice.' ; ' Witness told liim'hejwalyery glad-^ -'omtr,. ; as heiflndeestpo'liitAv-aa .^nrothferliri-in fr6m?Neilli ; and Boyd. - .Defenda'nt^ttoen sddx:^r,am^put|inar. % ? ; thi^ man Jay on.my^ c^TnjaccoubV. r ''Yy7iippsaY^f^9VInto the bar ? and Jser Vetf -* def isnQa l^:^an%sa'^ lnan? ! 'Aa^a-jd Snn'ith -withtj sonie' ) dru)ks.'?^lie^ira%^ .Sf^iib jnjhe *cq^met'ci^room seiwed the drinks .ci^f endint' aßJce^ .SmitWtffftaT|-e . possession .^6f the Kary.j .SmitK-jith^ VofSenfd^itnU? traj) door into the bktand cimeiiny-riLttii^^^

time two other mon came into the bar and Smith, pushed witness aside, and told him he had been too long there and he had better go peaceably — as he Would have to go at all events Witness asked defendant if it was by his orders Smith was putting him out. He replied it was as ho was detormined to take possession. Finding two powerful -men against him, witness left." He left because he was afraid he would get hammerd. Up to the date he has not retaken possession. On the 23rd he| beard a conversation between Mi* Neill and defendant. Mr Neill wished to put witness biack, again in possession of the bar, but defendent refused and threatened to chuck anyone outside as' he had plenty of foi ce -to do so. There were a great'matiyin the bf*,ralthe time-, most of whom were strangers to witness. Cross, examined by Mr Taylor— He sold spirits on account of Neill and Boyd, without a license but he had Watt's permission to : use his license Watts generally remained kbdut.'fce house, and slept and took his meakvthere. He did not know if Neill and Bovd charged hihi for his board. William Godfry Neill,, of the firm of Neill and Boyd, Dunedin deposed gthat he saw -the 'do* fendant. He had- conversation with 'the defendant on the 22nd aud 23rd. Witnoes asked him. .why ho liad turned their, ni'rfh ovfo He replied that he- had taken advice, *and r that their man haft been long enough 'there, and he intended to keep possession, a thought that all the monies taken and not been accounted'for, land that their debt was since then paid. Witness told defendant that if he did not give them poaceable possession they must bike it forcibly. Defendant dared him to do, and "he had people in the house who woulcl soon turn out, or chuck out, of tire window : anyone that attempted to take possession. , Cross examined by Mr Taylor — Watts agreed that Cameron should be pub in possesion ; ahy wages that were paid to Cameron, were paid by themselves, and Watts was charged with the amount as expenses. , They held possession untilsuch time as the debt was paid, and if the debt had been paid off they would have left possession. Re-examinatioh. At Watts own request they delayed selling his interest in the premises. Mr Taylor submitted that thero was no case tb warrant p. committal, upon several points of law,,tnechief one of which was— that there was no legal evidence before the Cmrt — that Messrs Neill and Boyd wero tenants for an un* expired"terrti of years, tbe proof of which was essential to justify a "committal— the document professed to be put in not being duly proved. He also addressed the Bench ou behalf 6f the defendant, commencing upon the evidence, and stating there was not sufficient to. warrant a committal for a forcible entry br detainer, and characterised the whole charge as a trumpery one, upon which no. jury would convict. Mr Denniston replied at some length. The first witness called for the defence wad Robert Smith, who being examined by Mr Tiylor stated, that he was at the Railway jlotel about 7 o'clock on the morning of the 22nd February. He went down and took possession 'Of tho bar. He met Mr Wattin the bar, and they then called Cameron ihtb the commercial room. Defendant told Cameron that Neill and Boyd had been long enough in tlie place to realise the amount bf money that he .was due to thom,-,and thatrhe was going to put witness into possession of the bar. Cameion went away and aftersvards returned, sa ying you will -recollect this is under protest, Witness denied having used the words imputed to him by Cameron. He never at any time assaulted, threatened, or menaced Cameron in any way. .There were only four persons in the liousfe, including witness and defendant. Heiii-y Adatnson, examined : deposed that he was boarding atthe Railway Hotel on the 22nd February* .Heard defendant say to Smith " tako possession' of the bar for me." Cameron did not say anything atthe time; afterwards he said it was a good job, as he was tired of this place. He also intended to take^ a stroll round the country. Cameron prepared some drinks which they had, and witness went to work. Saw'nb assault take place, and there was no angry words between any of the parties.

.This coucluded tho case for the defence.

'His Worship saidjhe would reserve his decision till next week, as the case was a new one, and the points of law raised were of importance to consider.

'OHETtt V. KNOX. . Claim of £13 2s 6d for coals. Judgment for plaintiff in amount claimed, and costs, 19.-*.