RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dunstan Times, Issue 246, 11 January 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Before 11. W. Robinson - , Resident-Magistrate, and J. D. Feuaud J.P.

Tuesday, January 5, ISC7.

Police v. M Connell —withdrawn. Same v. Adams—'Hie Pefendent was charged with being drunk and using abusive language to the pulice; fine 20s and 7s Gd costs. Nime v. V illiamson—For exposing fermented and spirituous liquors for sale in contravention oi Ordinance; Mr Bailey on behalf of the defendant. From the evidence it appeared that the police visited the house of defendant on the 2nd hist., at 10 p.m.. and found and seized sundn bottles of spirits, &c, in the aggregate, under two gallons. 'he room in which .he liquor was, was described as having counter, shelves, ifcc., as adapted to a public house. 'I he plea for defence was, the house had been a licensed house, that since the expiration of license, which was on the 31st December last, sufficient time had not elapsed for the removal of all evidences .if the house, having been a public-house, and that the liquor seized was portion of the old stock, and was kept for private use. The smallest penalty of 20s was inflicted, with 7s Gd costs. 'I he liquor seized was ordered to be destroyed.

t hachvick v. Grindlay—dismissed. ■* artin v. Low - For £2O, reduced from 21 Us 6d, to bring the ca.se within the jurisdiction of the < ourt. he evidence showed that the plaintiff had agreed to train horses and ride thtni on specified occasions, at the Eunstan ! istrict Races, foiservices, defendant agreed to pay at the rate of i2 per week for training, and certain sums for riding, amounting in ail to 131 lls6d, of which sum £lO had been paid on account. Defendant con-

ducted his own case. Mr Bailey appeared for plaintiff. The defence set up was that the horses had not been properlv trained everal witnesses were examined, WRtiffi. cient evidence was not elicited tor-reverie' gleet; one of the hor.es pW; ff did rot nde, although it was his f ], ltv to I)nve done so, for which £lO was charged The Bench in summing up, remarked, tTmt to prove neglect would be a mnMer of ; m . possibility, as the system a rioted Wt w trainers might differ m atPvi( ,i] v _u would require an adept to pr, wi „,,. p P --+], Pr „„. tern wrong. As the pl a ,v;ff i l!lf i ro * r - f) . ,!en m 01, e race, but }y d p ron , rPf i f }, e services of another i oc kev, the T-Prdiet would be for plaintiff, f Ol . £ll lls 6tJ and is La costs.

Moore v. ApppuH : bo i"d over to keep the ppppp. one fvvp*v of £25, and himself £'so, and to pay costs of court, £1 Hs6d.

TuesDAY.Sth inst.

Before H. W. Robinson, Esq., E.M.

John Oliver v. Fitzgerald and another - Claim for ?2<\ f or work and labor done. Judgment for amount claimed and costs. ' igginsv. Monre—Claim for 1 7 '4s fid, goods supplied. Struck out—no appearance of either parties.