Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.


Tuesday, July 25. (Before W. H.Revell, Esq., E.M.) Breach of the Licensing Ordinance: -- Teter Murphy,, landlord of Murphy's Family Hotel, Boundary street, -was charged with having on the morning of Saturday last-kep,t his licensed house open one hour beyond the time permitted, The defendant had been -allowed by the Magistrate to keep open his house until 3 a.m. on Saturday, on'the ocoasion of a- ball, but the house was v open until 4a.m, ; He was fined LI, and cautioned against a repetition of the offence. . civil cases. . _' . Qninlan V; Lahnian. — Claim -of L2O, being the balance alleged to be due to the plaintiff by the defendant on the' purchase money of the Court House Hotel. Defendant pleaded not indebted. The plaintiff stated that on the 3 1st "March he was proprietor of the Court House Hotel, and that he sold. o\it to the defendant for the sum of LGO, of whiqh L4O was to go in liquidation' of an account due by plaintiff to Mr Throekinorton, and the remaining L2O was to be paid over -when the land on which the house stood should besold byjfche Government, and the. money was then to be paid to. Mr William- Pole, in liquidation of plaintifi's debt to Km. An agreement was drawn up and signed according to these conditions., but the defendant had refused to pay the balance, L2O, although he' -had been repeatedly asked for it. The agreement was left in the possession of .the defendant. The defendant denied the statement of the plaintiff, and said thafrthe place was sold for L4O, and not L6O, and thatjn fact the sale altogether was merely an arrangement for the convenience of the plaintiff, it being understood atvthe time tha£ he~ (Lahman) only bought the hotel to hold it until the plaintiff could take it back again. He could not swear positively as to the amount mentioned "in the agreement, as/he had lost or mislaid the document, but he was satisfied it was not L6O. He denied that the - plaintiff had asked him for tho money, as he (plaintiff) was in his (defendant's) debt. -He believed he liad lost the agreement hi the river about a month after the transaction. He had lost his mackintosh in the river on the road to Hokitika, and it might v have been in. the pocket; The case was stopped for the evidence 6l Mr Nancarrow, who Svitnesstul the signatures to the agreement. Mr Nancarrow, however, could not throw any light ou tho matter, , as he had only witnessed the" signatures, and did not knovy the .contents of the document. Tbe Magistrate thought' it. strange that the defendant" should not have taken better care_of the agreement, nor remember the price, he had agreed to' -give for the hotel. .As tli'e defendant could not swear to aay spcciSc SiiJn, ;mdthb plaiiitilf had distinotly sv/orn to L(iO being the amount, ho gave -judgment for -thf full amount claimed, together' with ; costs. The defendant asked if he could not appeal, and tlie Magistrate said he could only do so on a point of law, and not on the merits, of the "case. " ' ' : G. Drane v. Chilcott.— Claim L 4. AU-i joiimcd for a week. Shemmland Co. v. Stanton.— Claim L 5 Bs. Judgment by default. Thomas Twist v John Harris.— Claim lls." Paid into court, ' Jolin Hand v. "Henry Lester.— L3 iss. Judgjnent >jy default. .'..." | J. Morris and Co.'v. J. C. Erown.— Ll3 13s. . Judgment for plaintiff, Ll3 9s (kl-. J. C. Brown v. Joshua, Morris.— Lls 9s. Judgment for dtsfendant. William Taylor v. Thomas Stewart. — L 7 10s. * N j appearance, case dismissed. Sutchv. Fish.— L3. Judgment for plaintiff, 'L2-ls, ' ■■ -^ • * Ketterley and Ballain y. Thos. Moss. — Ll9 ss. No appearance, case dismissed. ' Wm.' Leffen v. JSame. — L 3 14s. No appearance, case dismissed. J. Washington v. J. C. Browne. — Ll2. Judgment for plaintiff. » - " :

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details


Word Count