RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Friday, 26th January, 1871. (Before J. Udall and J. Hassell, Esqrs., J.P.'s.)

North Otago Times, Volume XV, Issue 596, 3 February 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Friday, 26th January, 1871. (Before J. Udall and J. Hassell, Esqrs., J.P.'s.)

Breach op the Customs Laws. —J. S. Anderson, on the information of Mr Parker, Sub-Collector of Customs, was charged with, advertising goods for sale that had not paid duty. The prosecutor stated that defendant had advertised a quantity of paperhanging3 for sale " cheap," and giving as the reason for his being able to offer them at the low price, " that he had succeeded in running in a fine assortment, and, therefore, evaded the duty which would otherwise have had to be paid to a corrupt and etfete administration." This was a violation of the la"/, and rlcfondr.nt was liable to have all lLo said goods a^izeJ and confiscated, and bo

ako fined treble the value of the goods. In thi; case he had only caused one roll of paper to i^Kf seized, valued at 8id. He must ask that the sained be confiscated and the fine inflicted, as it was desirable that the public should know that there was a penalty attached to the publication of bucIi advertisements, whether intended, as a trade "puff" or anything else. The defendant acknowledged inserting the advertisement in the local papers, but did not suppohc for a moment that anyone would have taken it for anything more than a " trade puff," and he was not aware in doing so that he was infringing the law. The Bench were of opinion that the defendant had clearly committed a breach of the law, but it believed it was in ignorance, and as the Government did not press for a further punishment than what was necessary to caution others not to commit a similar offence, the sentence would be a fine of Is. 9d., and the roll of paper confiscated.

CIVIL CASE. (Before Thomas Windle Parker, Esq.. R M.) Locke v. Brown. — The defendaifc in this ca»e which was heard and adjudicated upon on Friday the 20fch mst, applied for a re-hearing. The grounds upon which the application was made having been heard and considered the application wa* refused. J. White v. I). L. Duglasa.— Claim, L19 103., being balance of a dishonored acceptance. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for Plaintiff with costs. A. Dansey v. Kcid and Gray. — Claim, L4 10s., for services rendered and one week's salary for dismissal without notice. The defence was that defendant had absented himself for five days in the first week of the month instead of only three, permission having been granted for tho latter period only, it was not the custom of the firm to give notice when they dismissed anyone from their employ. LI 15s. was paid into Court, and the plea of not indebted as to the balance. Judgment for the plaintiff for L3 10a. and costs. Mr Allanby appeared foi* the plaintiff. P. O'Lauchlan v. T. Henderson. — Claim, L3, for work and labor done. Judgment for plaintiff with costs.