PUBLICANS' LICENSES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1091, 25 April 1863, Page 4

PUBLICANS' LICENSES.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Christchurch.—April 22. The adjourned meeting of Magistrates to adjudicate upon the applications preferred for Public-house Licenses was held as above, before John Hall, Esq., Chairman, and the following Bench:—A. Back, S. and J. Bealey, J. Brittan, C. R. Blakiston C. C. Bowen, A. H. Cunningham, T. W. Maude, G. A. E. Ross, W. Reeves, M. Studholme, R. Wilkin, and L. Walker, Esqrs., J.P. JOHN AUCKLAND. This applicant sought a conditional license for a house on the River Hinds. A license had been previously granted for the same house to Messrs. Hardcastle and Gill, but it was to be void in October last unless certain conditions were complied with. There should have been stabling for eight horses, but only half that accommodation had been provided, and the occupiers had failed to provide a sufficient number of sitting and bed rooms, hence the license had been absolutely void since October. Mr. Auckland stated that he had been in possession of the premises seven months, and had continued to sell liquor until two months ago, when he was warned by Mr. Revell not to do so. The premises at present comprised a public room, tap room, four bed rooms with six beds; a stockyard, but no sheepyard. The Chairman pointed out the dangerous position of the applicant in having sold liquor absolutely without any licence since October last; and asked how it was that the promised accommodation had not been provided. A sheepyard he regarded as absolutely necessary to such an establishment. In reply, the applicant said that the necessary timber could not be obtained owing to the scarcity of sawyers in the district; but the timber was now purchased and on its way, and within two months the required additions would be completed. He was sorry that he had violated the law by selling liquor since October, but he had done so in ignorance until he received the notice from Mr. Revell. The Bench, though dissatisfied that the proper accommodation had not been more promptly provided, granted the license with the proviso that it should not be used until the Inspector of Police endorsed it with a certificate that the necessary improvements had been made to the premises. GEORGE HENRY GIGOS. This applicant sought the renewal of a conditional license for the Selwyn Hotel, the case having been adjourned from the first meeting, with a view of inspecting the house, and inquiring into its character. The house and premises were pronounced satisfactory, but the Bench were of opinion that Giggs had not given sufficient personal attention to the business. Mr. Giggs, in reply to various questions said, that it was true that he had suffered from a scarcity of hay, but that difficulty was now removed; he had an abundance of both hay and corn. The hardness of his beds had been complained of, but lie did not know what was required of him. He had not been able to get feather beds, but each was now furnished with a

paliasse and soft mattress, with clean bed clothes. [The inspector was called, and he confirmed this statement.] As to his want of attention to the business, he was not in the position of a landlord resident in town, who could send a servant for everything required in the house. He had to make occasional journeys for stores, and was forced at times to be two or three days away to get in a bullock or other stock. The Chairman: That is nonsense. We wish to know whether you will promise to attend more closely to the management of your house, and give it that attention which every landlord is bound to bestow upon his business? Mr. Giggs: I do not understand you. I have no other business to attend to; and should have been more at my own house, last year, but I was making great additions to the place, and was forced to leave home frequently to purchase necessary material. The Chairman: The Bench will not be trifled with in this matter. You must promise to give strict personal attention to the management of the house, or the licence will be withheld. The applicant said that he could not promise to be every day at the house, but would endeavour to give it more attention than he had hitherto done. The licence was granted, but the Bench intimated that they were dissatisfied with the answers they had received from Mr. Giggs. To withhold the licence would be a great public inconvenience; but the holder had better get the licence transferred, unless he was resolved to pay particular attention to the business. The conditions of his licence must be exhibited in a conspicuous place, and not as hereto- j fore in a dark part of the sitting room. In future ) too, he must hold the " Visitors' Book" in his own possession, producing it when desired to do so. Its pages were now defiled by obscene and blasphemous remarks; in future, the landlord would be held in some degree responsible for such disgraceful entries. JOHN ELLSOX BROWN. This was also a case adjourned from the first meeting, the Bench on that occasion not being satisfied that the conditions had been fulfilled on which the liccnce had been granted. Inspector McEnnis reported favorably of the house, saying that all the conditions were now complied with excepting the supply of hay, which was said to be deficient. The Chairman expressed astonishment at this report, but the inspector fully maintained it, stating that there was a new public room, two sitting rooms, six small and one large bed room, with a stockyard, and, it was said, there was a sheepyard, but he had failed to discover it. The house is situated on the south bank of the Rakaia, and one of great public convenience, but the Chairman said it was notorious to the Bench that, with one exception, it had been worse supplied with hay than any similar house within the province. Mr. Slater, solicitor, who appeared for the applicant, stated that Mr. Brown, finding himself in pecuniary difficulties, had handed over the property to two respectable gentlemen of this city as trustees for the estate, and their names would be a guarantee for the character of the incoming tenant. The trustees were Mr. Macplierson and Mr. Burnell. Nothing liad been urged against the character of the house, and if Mr. Brown had not until very recently fulfilled the conditions imposed by the licence, it arose from the fact that the undertaking had proved to be beyond his means. The Bench granted a renewal of the license, with the proviso that it should only become effective by the indorsement of the Inspector of Police, that all the conditions are complied with, and that there is an adequate stock of hay and corn on the premises. ROBERT NEWTON. This was an application for a renewal of the licence of the Lion Hotel, Rangiora. The case was adjourned from the first meeting that a strict inquiry might be made into the character of Mr. Newton's management. The applicant handed in a document signed by the principal settlers in the district testifying that they had received every attention and civility from the present landlord, under whose management the house had been greatly improved. In answer to questions, Mr. Newton said the house contained, besides other conveniences, six bed-rooms, two private sitting-rooms, and two public rooms. Mr. Cunningham thought that the applicant had not kept faith with the Bench. Last year he had promised to provide increased accommodation, and ought not now to receive his licence until he had fulfilled that promise. Mr. Newton had promised to improve not enlarge the house, and had fully carried out that promise. As to furnishing more rooms, he had never yet had filled those he now possessed, and rarely required more of them. The Bench granted the licence, but intimated that a public-house was not Mr. Newton's vocation ; he would succeed better in almost any other, and they, in all kindness, advised him to cultivate some other pursuit. They were glad to find an improvement had been made in the house, but much more was needed. AV. HINGE. This was an adjourned consideration of an application for a renewal of a general licence to the hotel at Woodend. The Bench at the first hearing had doubts as to the propriety of renewing the licence ; the Chairman said owing to the reports against the house for supplying liquor to the Maoris, who are numerous in that locality. Since last licensing day, there had been two convictions against the house for supplying natives with grog, and since the licence had been given to the house the neighbouring Maoris had markedly deteriorated in character. They were constantly seen prowling about the house, labouring under the influence of drink. The inference was obvious, that they obtained the drink there. Mr. Hinge said that the convictions were against the barman, who had supplied the grog during his (Mr. Hinge's) absence. Since then he had dismissed the barman, and had striven in every way to prevent the natives from coming into the house. Of course, he could not be always present; but he had now taken a respectable partner (Mr. Tippetts), and one or other of them would always be in the bar, and as each would have a keen interest in maintaining a fair character for the house, they would be careful not to let any liquor get into the hands of the Maoris. The Bench unanimously refused to grant a renewal of the licence, and intimated that they would visit in the same manner any other publican who might supply Maoris with drink. B. N. JONES. This applicant, at the first meeting, sought a wine and beer licence for a house at the junction of Manchester street and Ferry road, Christchureh, but was refused under particular circumstances. These circumstances were stated on the present occasion by the applicant. The house in question was in the

occupation of Mrs. o'llara, who used it as a boardiii-r establishment, and she had written a ] tt ttr to t^. Bench stating that the house was hers until t} |( . latter part of 18G4. The fact was, that, the oui K . r (now on his way to England; had let the house Mr. Jones, on a lease for seven years, with th<. understanding that he was to obtain a licence f<, r j t I if possible. Mrs. O'Hara's tenancy would •? October, but she now forwarded another letter to i) I Bench stating that she was prepared to »i V( , UJ) t)|l . | premises to Mr. Jones as soon as a house, which w . | I about to be erected for her, was finished. 1 f The Bench declined to re-open the question. ,J .1. F. OAKES. || Mr. Oakes applied at the first meeting for :i 1 renewal of the licence for the Golden Fleece Hotel If and the decision was postponed to this dav that m some inspection might be made of the premises in iji the rear of the house. Serjeant Pender now reported < H that the back premises in the rear of the house wf-n- lg clean, but there was a scarcity of closet aeeommoda- M tion. There had been complaints of the house I having been a resort for prostitutes, but the inspector I said that for some months past the house had bti-u I well conducted. il Mr. Oakes stated that formerly many women of | notorious character had been supplied with drink in 1 the house, during his absence, but when lie returned I he had stopped their grog, and refused to admit >1 them into the hotel. He would not knowingly admit m any improper person, and had labored to the jR house of the bad character it had acquired. H- 91 wished to change the name of the house, and call it " The Masonic Hotel." \Jm The Chairman was glad to hear there was some fJimprovement in the house; but there was plenty of a room for more. The practice of holding raffles in ]1 the house was not only objectionable but illesral. J§ However much Mr. Oakes might be pleased at a changing the name of the hotel, it was hardly likely j that the craft he had mentioned would he gratified t J at having its name used as a cloak to hide the house's ■ I deformity. I Mr. Oakes stated that he had not encouraged 1 raffles in the house, and in fact there had only been one in it during his proprietorship. The licence was granted, but the Bench declined to alter the title of the house until its character was more fully redeemed by good management, of which the Bench had recently received an earnest. Until then, it would not be expedient to change its name. JAMES MLMMERV. j At the first meeting, Mr. Mummery applied for a general licence for the " Britannia Hotel," Christchurch; it had formerly been licensed for the sale of wine and beer only. The Bench had adjourned the case, having heard complaints of want of accommodation within the house and of filthy back premises. | Mr. H. B. Johnstone, solicitor, appeared for the applicant, and produced plans of a large building pro- -J posed to be erected by Mr. Mummery if the Bench g granted a general licence. The drainage from a 1 brewery at the back of the house had been com- I plained of, and the want of a urinal suggested. E These suggestions had been already attended to. | The report of the police showed that the house had been well conducted. The Bench took some time to consider their decision, intimating that they had felt great doubts whether or not they would grant a renewal of the wine and beer licence. It had first been granted on the representation of Mr. Mummery that he wished to provide a first-class refreshment and lodging house; but it had been in fact a mere beershop, lacking ordinary accommodation. They had however determined to grant a renewal of the wine and beer licence, but warned Mr. Mummery not to erect a costly building in the hope of obtaining a general licence. There was no need for another house of that description in the locality. Nevertheless! there must be a great improvement in the accommodation furnished by the next licensing day. or the wine and beer licence would then be withheld. JOHN BIRDSEY. This was a request that the Bench would re-con-sider the opinion they expressed at the first meeting, of refusing to renew the license now held by the applicant for the Heathcote " Valley Hotel." Mr. Duncan, solicitor, supported Mr. Birdsey's application, and presented a memorial, numerously signed by residents in the valley and other persons in the habit of using the house, declaring their belief that the house had been well conducted and was ti great public convenience. Mr. Duncan proceeded to say that he understood the Bench were intending to withhold the license because Mr. Birdsey had not provided a number of bedrooms, agreed upon as necessary when the license was issued. At that time Mr. Birdsey was fully resolved to erect the bedrooms, and that resolution would have been long since carried into effect, but the lessor of the ground (Mr. Holmes) was away in Melbourne, and a long time elapsed ere his return, and in the meantime Mr. Birdsey could not proceed with the work. During that time, experience proved that though a place of refreshment was greatly needed there, a lodging-house was nearly, if not altogether unnecessary ; nevertheless, timber was now on the ground for building the four bedrooms require! in the opinion of the Bench, and they were now in course of erection. Under these circumstances, knowing the great accommodation such a house must be to travellers now, that in a few months, when the railway was opened to the valley, such a house would be a necessity; and, looking at the number and respectability of the names attached to the memorial, certifying that the house had been irreproachably conducted, 1 and was a great convenience to travellers —he thought the Bench would find no difficulty in the way of granting a renewal of the license. The Chairman said, that after carefully considering the memorial, the Bench felt they could not alter the decision expressed at the previous meeting, and the license must be withheld. Mr. Birdsey had been highly favored in having been permitted to hold two licenses; it was a favor that would never again be granted. Mr. Birdsey had disappointed the Bench and not kept faith with them, and he must now abide the consequences. THOMAS JONES. At the first meeting, Mr. Jones's application for a wine and beer license for a house in the Ashley district was refused. To-day the applicant, by Mr. H. B. Johnstone, solicitor, asked that the question might be re-opened; in support of his request, he presented a respectably-signed memorial, bearing the signatures of nearly all the settlers in the Ashley district, praying that the applicant might have a license, as he had built a desirable place in full confidence that the license would be granted, as a public house was urgently needed in that locality. For the present, a wine and beer license only was asked for. The Bench could not re-open the question. They

sympathised wiH' Mr. Joncs in his disappointment, iul believing him to be a worthy man, they trusted he would bo able, during the ensuing year, to turn jus premises to account as an accommodation house; and if he applied next year, most probably lie would obtain a license. LEWIS KOBKKT KAH DON. "Mr. Kaddon applied last week, at the Lyttelton mooting, for a renewal of his general license for the Sumner Hotel, when the case was adjourned to this ( I <lV t0 mi ike some enquiries into the accommodation furnished by the house, concerning which Mr. }! . u l,lon could not then give any satisfactory description There was also an imputation as to the applicant's general sobriety. The applicant stated that besides the bar and kitchen, the house contained three sitting rooms, five double-bedded and three single bedrooms. He had stabling for six horses, and was now providing additional stables. The Inspector stated that the character of the house was good, and he had found, by his enquiries, that the landlord was a sober man. A conversation ensued between the applicant, and the Chairman, as to the style and extent of the hotel. The Chairman said the Bench were of opinion that, from the importance of the place, Sumner ought to have now a superior hotel, and if the applicant were prepared to make such additions to the house as would bring it under that category, the Bench would have no difficulty in renewing the license; if not j it was doubtful whether the license would be renewed. From Mr. Raddon's statement, he had not a sufficient lease of the premises to justify him in making any extensive additions; but if Mr. Day, the owner (who was present in court), would strengthen his hands by giving him a longer lease, such additions should at once be made. The Chairman said it was unreasonable to expect the tenant to spend a large sum of money in building under his present tenure; but if Mr. Day would make some arrangement with him, the object which the Bench had in view might be accomplished. Mr. Day was asked by the Chairman if he would make some such terms, but he said emphatically he would not spend another shilling on the premises whilst the present tenant was in possession. The Bench, after a careful consideration of the circumstances of the case, could not as matters stood at present grant a renewal of the licence. It was a duty they owed to the public to see that a respectable hotel was established at Sumner. The Bench had no desire to injure either landlord or tenant, but they had a duty to perform, and they would do it. They would suspend their decision for one month, in the hope that in the meantime some friendly arrangement would be made between Mr. Day and the tenant. If the former did not grant such terms as would enable Mr. Kaddon prudently to comply with the requirements of the Bench, he need not come at the end of the month to ask for the licence, as it most certainly would not be granted, and both parties would thereby suffer. LUMLEY AND PALMER. This was an application for a general licence for the Railway Hotel, Lyttelton, which has hitherto enjoyed only a wine and beer licence. The case was adjourned from the meeting held in Lyttelton last week, there being some unpleasant reports as to the manner in which the house was conducted. The license was originally granted to Lumley and Jones; the latter went out of the firm, and the current belief was that Mr. Palmer became sole proprietor. The Bench were aware of this, and as it will be seen below tried to elicit the fact from Palmer, against whom there had been a conviction for selling sly grog. Mr. Oakes, solicitor, appeared for the application, saying that his client, Mr. Lumley, was absent on business in Otago. The police had reported that the house was rowdy, but in other respects satisfactorily conducted. He did not quarrel with that report. No doubt the house was a little rowdy, considering what class of men were its chief supporters. There was a rowdy house in every town, to which sailors, boatmen, navvies, and miners would always resortl; and this was a convenient arrangement. When the members of the Bench went into an hotel, they would not like to be shouldered by bullock-drivers and navvies. Hence the necessity for two classes of houses of public entertainment. They would not compare the White Hart and Golden Fleece with such hotels as they themselves used, and yet they very properly renewed the licences to the two houses named, and to be impartial they must also grant a licence to the | party for whom he appeared, unless it were shown I that the house had been improperly conducted. The house was surrounded by respectable tradesmen, not one of whom complained about its rowdiness, arid one of the oldest settlers and most respectable men in the town, Mr. Gee, was now in court, prepared to say what he knew about the house (which was almost immediately opposite to his own) if the Bench would call him. Mr. Palmer was called, and in reply to the Chairman said that he was manager of the Railway Hotel, but was not a partner in the business nor did h( derive any profit from it. The Chairman pressec the question in several forms, and observed thai parties in Mr. Palmer's position, stood very inse curely. He did not know whether they were no amenable to a law which might punish then severely. After deliberation, the Chairman said the Bene! were clearly of opinion that it was their duty t refuse this licence. There was no use in Mr. Palmer' ever applying again. He had been proved to be un worthy to hold a licence. Mr. Oakes inquired if the Bench also refused th licence to Mr. Lumley, to which the Chairma replied that the licence was refused altogether. THOMAS ATKINSON. iJIr. Atkinson applied at the meeting last week i Lyttelton, for a renewal of the license to the Univei sal Hotel, and the case was adjourned to this day, th Bench being of opinion that the hotel accommodatio was unsatistactory. The Chairman said the house itself was the be; in the Colony, but there seemed to be not sufficiei attention paid to the requirements of travellers. 5 was notorious all over the country that the hotel ai commodation in Lyttelton was disgraceful, not at tli Universal Hotel only, but also in the other hotels Port. Complaints were constantly being made < want of provision, want of cleanliness, and inattentk to the most reasonable requirements of visitors. T1 Bench had given their most serious attention to th case, owing to the importance of the house, and n on any personal grounds. Mr. Atkinson was called, and in reply to sever questions, said he was having improvement s made 1 the back premises ; so far as he knew, his beds we: all clean, new ones having been recently provide*

as to scarcity of meat, his butchers' bills would shew that in proportion to the trade done, the consumption was enormous ; and if the Bench were not satisfied lie was sorry to say he couldn't help it. lie didn't know what they wanted. The Chairman, in conveying to Mr. Atkinson the decision of the Bench, said they rccognised the necessity of improved hotel accommodation in Lyttelton. Some years ago it was bad enough, but latterly it had become worse. The management of both the Mitre and Universal was notoriously bad, that of the latter appearing to be the worse. He (Mr. Atkinson) did not seem to know what was wanted to satisfy the proper requirements of the public ; but the Bench would do what they could to secure those rights so far as could be done by striving to obtain better hotel accommodation in Lyttelton. They were resolved to make an example of the worst case, and therefore refused the license to this house. They regretted that so good a house should be rendered useless for twelve months ; but if next year a proper person (and this was not meant to be personally offensive to the present applicant) would apply, with guarantees to conduct the business satisfactorily, the license would then be restored. JOSEPH WJI. JULIAN. Mr Julian also applied last week in Lyttelton, to have the license renewed for the Mitre Hotel, and was referred to this meeting for a decision, there being unfavorable reports as to the bad accommodation the house afforded, as regards food and cleanliness. The back premises were also said to be in a filthy state. The applicant said that the latter evil was now removed. As regards the general complaint, he could only say that he had endeavoured to win a good name for the house by conducting it respectably, and furnishing his tables as amply as circumstances would allow. A gentleman might occasionally have been put into an inferior bed, but his beds were generally as good as could be found iu the province, and cleanliness and neatness characterised their general furnishing. He had three private sitting rooms for families, and some of the most respectable families in the place had stayed with him for months, and he had never had a word of complaint from them as to theii accommodation. One member of the Bench said that a few weeks ago he was placed in a dirty, broken bed at the " Mitre," and was so uncomfortable that he did not obtain two hours' sleep through the night. Another Magistrate said that he and others called there recently and could obtain no food save a little bread and stale cheese ; and the Chairman observed that on the previous Wednesday when he and several brother Magistrates called at the house, they could obtain neither food nor attendance. Mr. Julian was sorry to hear that a gentleman had been put into an indifferent bed,—the servants could not know every body— . The Chairman : That's the very thing we wish to prevent. It is not desirable that you should give better accommodation to the gentlemen you know than you would to those you don't know ; but that you should furnish proper accommodation to all. Mr. Julian was very sorry to hear so much fault found with his house; both he and his wife had attended closely to the management and had used their utmost endeavours to give satisfaction to everybody. However, he was about to leave the house, and iie hoped his successors would be able to give more satisfaction than it appeared he had done. The Chairman said Mr. Julian had no power to transfer the business to others ; or, if he did so, and the transferrees conducted the business without first obtaining a licence, they laid themselves open to be mulcted in heavy penalties. There seemed to be an erroneous opinion abroad about this matter, and he would take that oppartunity of warning all persons who sought to evade the Licensing Law, that they exposed themselves to great peril. After deliberation, the Chairman said that the Bench had determined to renew this licence solely on the ground that it would be a great public inconvenience to close at the same time both the principal hotels in Lyttelton ; but if there was not a very marked improvement in the food and accommodation furnished to travellers and lodgers, the licence would certainly be Avithheld next year. As regarded transferring the licence to Messrs. Wheeler and Nurse, at the request of Mr. Julian, the Bench could not do that now, nor indeed until the Ist of July ; and he (the Chairman) would recommend Messrs. Wheeler and Nurse not to have anything to do with the business until they found whether or not the Bench would grant them the licence. The Court at its rising adjourned to that day fortnight, then to sit at Timaru. Friday, 24th April, 1863. (Before John Hall, Esq., 11.M.) A. 11. Cunningham, of Eernside, was fined in the sum of £100 on each of two informations charging him with being the owner of 5000 scabby sheep. The penalties are to be remitted, however, if clean certificates be produced by the 15th September next. Mr. J. D. Macpherson appeared for Mr. Cunningham, and admitted the charges. Alexander M'lntosh, of M'lntosh Bay, was fined £30 for landing 120 sheep from the Mary Ann and Christina without having had them inspected, and without receiving a certificate from the Inspector of Sl Mn Duncan appeared for Mr. M'lntosh, and stated that the sheep had been landed by the master of the vessel without M'lntosh knowing anything of the matter. The R.M. said that it was only on account ot the open manner in which the defendant had acted in this case that he would impose the minimum penalty; at the same time he hoped that this case would act as a warning to others, as he might not feel disposed, after so many warnings, if any other cases arose, to deal so leniently with the offenders. He hoped Mr. Duncan would intimate to the master of the Mary Ann and Christina that he could now be proceeded against for landing these sheep, under another clause of the Ordinance. Mr. Duncan undertook to let him know. Edward Allen was charged by Police Constable Nelson with indecently exposing his person in i public thoroughfare, namely, Cashel street. He was fined 405., or in default, forty-eight hours' imprison' ment. He chose the alternative. HERMANN VON OKSKN V. HERMANN KNAUF. Larceny. —The accused in this case was chargec with stealing a purse, containing £1 35.; a pair o boots, valued at £1 55.; and a pair of socks, valuei at Is.', from the residence of the prosecutor, at tin River Halswell. . . The prosecutor stated that he lived in a houS' belonging to a person named Gerken, at the Hals well. On the Sunday before the Bth of April inst he went up to work at Gerken's Bush. He left ii the house the purse, boots, and socks in question the purse containing the money was in a pocket of : pair of trousers that he left hanging on the wall o the house. He left no one in the house, but cam away and tied the door up with flax. He was awa; for a week, and when he returned, on the baturola. evening after he had left, he found the door of hi house tied up as he had left it, but on entering t i house, he found the trousers containing the purs pulled down from the wall, and lying on thestretchei The purse containing the money was gone, in boots and socks were gone also. In answer to a question from the Bench, witne. said he had never seen the prisoner before. The next witness called was Catherine klizanet Gerken, she stated that she was the wife of Joh Gerken, and lived on the Halswell, that the prosi cutor, their servant, resided at their old house, wine was close to where they now lived ; that she safive men, prisoner being one, came to the lious about five o'clock on the Bth April instant ; that st spoke to prisoner in German, and that prisoner ei

quired for work. She informed him her husband, did not want any hands, and she gave the men some bread and meat with a glass of beer. They went away for a short time, but returned, and prisoner came into her house and asked whether or not he could stay at the old house (the prosecutor's) all night. She told him there was an accommodation house a quarter of an hour's walk further on, and she refused to allow them to stay there all night. He continued to seek lodging for the night, but she still refused ; at last prisoner left her house, and on looking out of the window she saw all the men including prisoner, enter the house where prosecutor resided. They entered by the door. Slie did not see them come out. The police here applied for a remand for the purpose of obtaining further evidence. The Resident Magistrate granted the remand until to-morrow morning at 12 noon, when we understanl a material witness will be forthcoming from Lyttelton. CLIFF y. FRANCIS HOIVBS. Mr. Travel's appeared for complainant; Mr. Duncan for the defendant. This case was adjourned from the 21st instant, in consequence of a technical difficulty having occurred in the case, namely, whether the defendant still continued to be the apprentice of Cliff under the indenture entered into between the defendant and Holmes and Cliff, a dissolution of partnership having taken place between Holmes and Cliff since the indenture had been executed. Mr. Travers, for the complainant, contended, and produced various authorities in support of his argument, that the defendant, having entered into an indenture with complainant and his late partner, Mr. Holmes, was bound to obey the commands of either of them. It was true that Cliff, the present complainant, had dissolved partnership with Holmes, but, notwithstanding there having been no assignment from Holmes and Cliff to Cliff, still the apprentice was bound to obey any commands which Cliff chose to make. Mr. Duncan, in reply, said that his client had been bound by deed to obey the lawful commands of Messrs. Holmes and Cliff ; they had, since the execution of that deed, dissolved partnership, and he contended that such dissolution put an end to the indenture. It was not fair when an indenture had been entered into by an apprentice to serve twO masters, that he should, in consequence of one leaving the colony, only receive the instruction of one. The learned gentleman quoted various authorities in support of his argument. The Resident Magistrate said he was only sorry that such a case, which had evidently, from the authorities produced, been exceedingly doubtful in the mother country, should have been left to him to decide. He, however, after giving it the best consideration he could, and bearing in remembrance that there was a Court of Appeal, if his decision was erroneous, thought that the apprentice (defendant) was bound to obey the commands of Holme and Cliff, and that Holme and Cliff were liable for his instruction in the trade to which he had been apprenticed for the term of five years. At the same time he (the Resident Magistrate) would reserve to himself the right to determine whether, after hearing the evidence, it would not be advisable to discharge the defendant from his indenture. George Cliff was then sworn. He produced the indenture in question, and stated that on the lltli instant, about 2 p.m., he ordered the defendant to put his tools together, that he might take them_ up to his farm at Prebbletown, in order that he might do some work there. The work was to put up an addition to a stable and put a roof on a pig-stye. Defendant said very well. At 5 p.m. he saw defendant again, and asked him if he had done what he had been ordered, and he said no, that it took more than his wages to keep him, and asked why he (complainant) did not send some other apprentice. Afterwards he saw defendant again, and asked him if he had put his tools together, he replied no, nor did he mean to do it. He (complainant) said all right, that he would send a policeman after him. lie then saw him at his (defendant's) father's house. He asked his father whether it was with bis sanction that defendant disobeyed the commands of his master ; defendant's father replied yes, and that his son should not go to mend his d—d pigsties. Defendant did not go up to the farm nor did he comply with the order given. By Mr. Duncan : I sent defendant to Springfield on the Monday in question. He did not refuse to work. He has been Avorking with me ever since. Defendant hoards with his father. I gave him 15s. per week. My farm is seven miles from Christchurch. The work would have taken him three days. I intended to have sent him up with a dray. He would have to drive. I had made no provision for his board at my farm, either on this occasion, or on a former occasion when he went up. He has been four years with me. By Bench : Defendant has been at every branch of his trade. I have had no cause to find fault with defendant previous to the day in question. This was all the evidence adduced for the prosecution. Mr. Duncan said he would call no witnesses. The Resident Magistrate said, that after a careful consideration of this case he had come to the conclusion that the defendant had acted wrongfully ; ne had no right to disobey Cliff's lawful cmnmand ; le was still the apprentice of Holme and Cliff. J. here was still one matter he had to consider, viz.—whether it was not advisable to discharge the defendant from his indenture. After considering the matter fully, he thought that as one of the parties to the indenture (Holme) had left the colony, and the defendant was thereby deprived of part of his instruction, it was desirable to discharge the defendant from furthei services under the indenture. He would, at the same time, severely reprimand the defendant, and order him to pay the costs. The Clerk of the Bench was then directed to draw out a formal discharge of ihe indenture. LYTTELTON, THURSDAY, AI'IUL 23, 1853. (Before Wm. Donald, Esq., R.M., and R. Latter V Esq., J.P.) Charge against the Steward of the Shii Huntress. — Captain Barron preferred a charge against Frederick Eislier, steward of the ship Huntress, for refusing to do his duty, and using threaten' ing language on the high seas. The captain stated that he had occasion to complain of the conduct oJ Fisher. On one occasion he appeared to be in drink He also refused to do ship's duty with the crew when ordered. The case was adjourned for furthei evidence, till Saturday. A Deserter. —Edgar Rouelle, one of the crew o the French whaling ship Winslow, was charged witl desertion from Akaroa about three months ago. lin evidence of Captain Laurent Labaste proved tiia the seaman left the ship without his permission Constable Ramsay apprehended linn on boaitl tin American ship Volga. . The Court prisoner to be given up t< Captain Labaste.