HAWERA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume II, Issue 165, 28 October 1881, Page 2

HAWERA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, October 27th, 1881. Before Captain Wray, R.M.

TRESPASSING ON THE RAILWAY LINE, AND

USING OBSCENE LANGUAGE.

William Kelly was charged under the Public Works Act, with having on 11th October trespassed on the railway line. Defendant said he was unconscious of the whole transaction, and threw himself on the mercy of the Court. Constable Mclvor stated that he found defendant half drunk lying on the line near Normanby, in a dangerous position, and when interfered with, he used most abusive language. Witness could not take him (defendant) in charge, because at that time he had another man in charge. — Defendant was also charged under the Vagrant Act, with having on same occasion used obscene language within the hearing of persons passing along a public road— to wit the Normanby road. The evidence was the same as in the previous case. A previous conviction for drunkenness was proved, Defendant was fined 20s. ; allowed 24 hours in which to pay. Cook v. Eichards.— Claim for £6 195. 6d. Mr. Barleyman, for defendant, took exception to the bill of particulars, inasmuch as " drinks" were charged for without it being set forth what kind of drinks they were. In answer to the Bench, Mr. Cook said the drinks supplied were spirituous liquors. Mr. Barleyman said if that were so, of course, under the present 6tate of the law, the charge for drinks could not be recovered ; but independently of that, defendant declared he did not owe the money. However, he could not come to court, and as he believed he had been wrongfully deprived of £2 2s. of his account, he felt himself justified in falling back upon this technical defence. The Licensing Act provided that no inkeeper could recover for drinks. The Bench pointed out that that did not refer to bottles of liquor. It simply related to spirits drunk on the premises. Probably Mr. Barleyman relied on the Tippling Act. Mr. Barleyman said the Tippling Act was repealed by the Licensing Act, 1881. The Bench said in that case plaintiff could recover for the bottles of liquor supplied. On the question being put,

plaintiff said he had no doubt that all the bottles of liquor charged for were supplied, but he could only swear to the delivery of a bottle of whisky and a bottle of brandy. The Bench said that Mr. Cook could only recover for that jpf which he could prove delivery. Judgment for £2 16s. 6d., including £2, money admit* ted to have been borrowed, and which had been paid into Court. Costs, 75..