BALCLUTHA.

Clutha Leader, Volume III, Issue 112, 1 September 1876, Page 5

BALCLUTHA.

August 30, 1876. (Before J. P. Maitland, Esq., I^.M.) SLY <JRO&-SELLING'. Police v. Tuck.— Charge '6f having; on the 13th August, at Catliiis River, unlawfully sold or permitted to be sold; three glasses of brandy. Mr Reid appeared for defendant, Who pleaded Not Guilty. Sergeant Daly, who conducted the prosecution, called . . . Charles "Wilson; raftsman, Catlins River, who said that on Sunday, the 13th August, lie wa'6 at Tuck's house along with one Nelson, and a fisher man. Witness had several glasses of brandy and some beer — five or six drinks. He a!sked for drink the same as he would do in an hotel, and wag supplied by Tick with if. lie paid Cd &

glass for. it. He spent about 10s lv tlie houvc upon drink during the afternoon. By Mr Reid : He left a litfclo before dark, and was " tight." Jesse Whipp, fisherman, Catlins Kiver : Was at Tuck's place on Sunday, the 13th August, along with Wilson and Peter .Nelson. Had some drinks. Witness paid for part of. thorn. Tuck supplied the drinks. Wilson and Kelson also paid for drinks. They were all slightly elevated. This was the case for the prosecution; Mr Heid said that after hearing the evidence he would withdraw his plea, or, at all events, he would not contend that his client had not supplied drink on the 13th August. Hej however, hoped his Worship would deal leniently with the case. The defendant had a large family to ! support, and if a heavy fine was inflicted he would have to go to gaol; Sergeant Daly said defendant was convicted of a similar offence on 17th February, 1873, when be was fined £17". His Worship said he could hot deal leniently with the case. Defendant had becri well warned. He did not know one that had been better warned. He told defendant before that he would see that lie should adopt some other means of cainiug a livelihood than grog-selling. He would sfcill try to make him do so, and they would see who would first .tire of the struggle. Fined £20, or two months' imprisonment ; witnesses expenses, £3. Oa the application of Mr Reid, the, defendant was allowed a week to pay tlie fine. Police t. Hill. — This was a similar charge, the date of the offence being 30' th July. Mr Reid appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty.

! The prosecution wafe again conducted by Serj geant Daly, who 'called I Henry Berg : Was at Hill's place on 30t.1i July, ; along with M'Arthur, Miller, and M : Queen. Had a glass of brandy, which was supplied by a woman in the house. Had three drinks of brandy altogether, which were supplied by the same person. Saw Hill on leaving. Did not pay for the drinks at the time, but paid the bill afterwards. Saw M 'Queen pay some money, but do not know what for. M'Queen ': Was also at Hill's on 30bh July, aud had drinks, but could nofc say what sorb. Was supplied by tho housekeeper. So far as he could recollect he did not pay for the drinks, nor did he see them paid for. Had some drinks at the hotel, arid did n6t remember what oc- ■ curred at Hill's. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Reid submitted tfiere was not sufficient evidence to justify a conviction". His Worship thought the evidence was insufficient, but warned defendant against bein<* again brought up, as he had no doubt the charge) was justified. Smith, v. Murray. — This was a charge of abusive language alleged to have been used by defendant to plaintiff on 13th ultimo. Mrs Smith gave evidence of the threatening and abusive language used towards her by Airs Murray, who was upon lira Smith's ground afe the time. His Worship pointed out that that was not a public place within the meaning of tho Act. Case dismissed. Cltitha Leader Company v. Atkinson.— Claim of £21 9s.— Mr Beid for plaintiff ;Mr Taylor for defendant, who asked for an adjournment for a week, as defendant was unable to be present.— Adjournment granted, on payment of £1 Is expenses. Black V. Smith.— Claim of £7 5s 9d, f6r goods supplied, board, &c. Mr Taylor for plaintiff ; Mr Henderson for defendant, who hud paid £3 4s 4d into Court, and pleaded not indebted for balance. After evidence and long argument, de fendaut paid an additional £2 LOs 6d into Court, and judgment was given for amount paid in, with costs; Macdonald v. Watt— Claim of £43 16s 6d, balance of dishonoured acceptance. Judgment by default for amount claimed, with costs. The Court theu adjourned.