LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 8306, 12 July 1890, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.-Civil Sittings. Fbiday. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Conolly.] EiiRhNFiUKU V. Glkksox.—Claim for taking accounts re the Albion Hotel. The hearing of this case, which had already occupied three days, was resumed. Mr. Theo. Coo per ami Mr. Bautno appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Tole and and Mr. Mahony for the defonce. Mr. Cooper announced that the plaintiffs case was now closed. Mr. Mahony opened the defendant's case. Briefly tho position of the defendant, was this : that when the contract was entered into botweun Gleeson and Ehrenfried, live years ago, Gleeson was then a publican only, and never was nor never had been a brewer ; that the contract was brought about by the advances of Mr. Ehrenfried, who, in fact, set tho ball rolling. At the time tho contract was made various beers had been supplied to those housos. Mr. Downing was the brewer, not Mr. Gleeson. For the beer he ordered Mr. Gleeson was always willing to pay a fair price, but Mr. Ehrenfried refused to supply him at less than £4 (5s (r\ ; and with regard to tho lower class of beer, which Mr. Ehrenfried said he brewed, and supplied at £,"} 10s and £."> 12s 6d, the evidence would be emphatic that it was a thing unknown, and that the beer which ho supplied at that price Mas tho same as the other marketable quality beer which he supplied to other houses. Further evidence would bo given that the very best quality of beer in the market was available at £4 per hogshead, ami had been so for four years. Patrick Gleeson, the defendant, was called and examined by Mr. Tole. Ho knew the plaintiff for closo on 25 years. Witness had been a hotelkecper in Auckland since 1872, almost continuously, and was so in 1884 and 1885. In 1884 he kept Gleeson's hotel, Customs-street, and was the proprietor of the live hotels that have been mentioned in connection with this case. The Albion was one of them. Witness was not a brewer; never had been in his life. He gave leases of the several hotels in 18S4 for long terms. There was ji lease of tho Albion, the Aurora, and the City granted before 1885. Mr. John Lynch was fu>t lessee of the Albion, and Mr. Yaxley took it over from him. Fisher Brothers succeeded Yaxley, who died in 1885. Fisher Brothers compromised with their creditors, and it was arranged that Mr. A. Downing should go into the hotel. That was in 18815, and witness himself went into it in Movcmber of that year, and had been in possession ever since. He had done considerable business with Mr. Ehrenfried for years before 1885. In that year they had business relations in regard to these hotels respecting the trade of the houses. About, tho "JOth of August,, 1885, .Mr. I). McXal), who was travelling for Mr. Ehrenfried, called on witness in the way of business for orders, slating that Mr. Ehrenfriod had bought Whitson and Company's brewery. He gave witness to understand that ho represented Mr. Ehronfried's business. He said that Air. Ehrenfried had other largo capitalists with him, and they wore anxious to extend their business. They had a general conversation ;is to the business of hotels, and what amount of business his hotels might do. Witness told him he could not then give him any orders, as he had a previous arrangement with Mr. Downing, brewer, Wlumgarei. Mr. Downing at that time rented from witness a store next Gleeson's Hotel, which lie used as a depot. He told Mr. AlacNab that in October his contract with Mr. Downing would cease unless it was renewed. He gave Mr. Mac Nab no decided answer ; and Mr. Ehrenfried came to witness a, day or two afterwards and told him that Mr. MacXab hail told him nbout what had passed, ami they entered ' into a general conversation as to the trade of the houses. Witness did not go to.Mr. Ehrenfried ; it was he who came to witness ; and they went into . 4 private room in Gleeson's Motel. He showed Mr Ehrenfried over the hotel, and they had a .short conversation concerning the building. Mr. Ehronfriu I asked him if it was true that he had a special arrangement with Mr. Downing, and iio told him it was so. H(i asked it witness was likely to renew it again, and witness said it all depended. Mr. Ehrenfried asked him if he would accept an offer from him, seeing that they had done a good deal of business before, ami witness said he was open to an oiler from him or anyone else, that he wanted to mako the most he could of his property. He told witness that he thought n man like Downing, with out capital, and under the disadvantage of carrying on business in Whangarei, could not give the same satisfaction as ;; wealthy firm in Auckland like his own people, who had plenty of money. They bought the business, and intended to increase it if possible. They then had some drinks, and Mrs. Gleeson (Mine into the room. Mr. Ehrenfried asked him what terms Mr. Downing was giving him, and witness told him ho was not quire prepared to tell him his arrangements with Mr. Downing, but that it was from year to year. Mr. Ehrenfried asked would witness not enter into a longer term, say for ten years. Witness .-aid he would prefer dealing from year to year, as his leases were different to the ordinary leases made for hotels. Witness then proceeded to detail the conversation which ensued. He told Mr. Ehrenfried the houses had cost about £4000 each, and in order to secure a good class of tenants the leases wen: so drawn that the tenants could choose their own beer ami spirits. Mr. Downing had tin; supplying of the houses, but lie had to give the tenants whatever beer they required, and allowed witness 0.-i (is on every hogshead of beer that went into four of those houses, and 11s 61 on Gleeson's hotel, which witness occupied. That would bo making the beer for his own hotel £4, ami all the others £4 Os (id, and including £.'{ a week rent of tin; store. Witness told him Mr. Downing's arrangement was worth £(500 a year. Mr. Ehrenfried asked whether it would not bo more satisfactory to take a lump sum for the trade of the houses for a specified term, say ten years, but witness told him the arrangement existing was satisfactory, ami he would prefer to deal by the year. His reason was that Brown and Caiupbell was then in treaty with him, but he did not tell Mr. Ehrenfried so. Mr. Ehrenfried asked for a return of the quantity of beer taken in the houses for twelve months, and the upshot was that Mr. Ehrenfried said, when ho was supplied with that, ho wotdrl consult his people, and return on a future date and make an offer. A number of other interviews took place, which culminated in the agreement by which witness sold to Mr. Ehrenfried the trade of his five houses for a term of seven years for £2000. The (lead was signed in Diirnan ami Armstrong's ollice, on the '2nd of November, a deposit of £'200 having been paid previously, and witness then received a cheque for £1800. Mr. Ehrenfried and witness left Messrs. Dignan and Armstrong's olViee in order that witness might introduce Mr. Ehrenfried to the tenants. He detailed tho interviews with the various tenant?, more especially that with Mr. Lynch, of the Aurora Hotel, who had an engagement to take wine and spirits from Mr. Heather. Nino months after the agreement witness spoke to Mr. Ehrenfried about the price at which h<; was selling beer to other houses, and his being undersold ; but Mr. Ehrcnfried refused to reduce his price. He had pointed out to him at that time, 1887, that lie could buy Brown and Campbell's beer at £4, or for 11> ,, , and Joel's Dunedin beer for £4, or for less, and the Dunedin Brewery Company's beer he was offered for £15 16s. He mentioned different beers that were to be had in the market for £4 and. less. Hi: know the beers, and always found an improvement in his trade by drawing Dunedin beer, and, in his experience, every house which draw Dunedin beer improved their trado by it. The Dunedin benr ho had experience of was, he considered, fully as good as either Ehrenfried's or other Auckland beers. It was in December, 1887, that lie lirsh ordered, other than Ehronfried's beer, acting under the advice of his solicitors, .Messrs. Heskoth and Button. The only dispute he then had with Mr. Ehrenfried was as to. the price of beer. In regard to the question of compensation for levels ;io the font of llobson-stroet, witness explained the steps he took to have the levels fixed before he built Gloeson's Hotel on an allotment purchased from the Harbour Board. The corporation could not interfere with the levels without his consent. The question of compensation arose, and witness accepted £2800. Mr. Ehrenfried might have delayed but could not prevent his receiving the money, and for three months previous there had been a dispute

with Mr. Ehrenfried as to the price of beer. There was no dispute as to the compensation. Tho witness gave evidence as to orders ho gave ab Ehrenfried's office for Dunedin ale which Mr. Myers refused to supply. He gave the order to Mr. John Reid, and ib was supplied at £3 16a per hogshead. Witness took that as a refusal on Mr. Ehrenfried's part to supply him, and he himself ordered and took some Dunedin beer, Brown and Campbell's beer, and others, and also some of Ehrenfried's beer. The orders for beers othor than Ehrenfried's were not executed. These orders wero given after the action tried in August, ISBS. in regard to the interviews which had taken place in Mr. Cotter's otlice as to a settlement of the action, the witness said he told Mr. Heather, in Mr. Ehrenfried's presence, that lie wished ib to be understood that he hail no solicitor present and lie was f;°ing into his, Ehronfried's, solicitor's office, and that anything he said there would not prejudice his (witness , ) case. Mr. Cotter was not in, and a jjeneral conversation took place between Mr. Ehrenfried, Mr. Heather, and witness, respecting the matters in dispute. Mr. Heather left as Mr. Cotter w;n not there, and they all left. About live o'clock the same evening Mr. Myers drove up for him and asked him to go to Mr. Cotter's ollice as lie was then in. He denied that there was any appointment for four o'clock, or any other time. He went with Mr. Myers, but raised the objection to him that his solicitor was not; present. When he got to the office with Mr. Myers, Mr. Ehrenfriod and Mr. Cotter were present, and they talked over matters. There was mention made of Mr. Ehrenfried giving witness beer at£4 a hogshead for the Albion Hotel, and that witness was to take 100 hogsheads at the end of the term for what he had nob taken while they were on unfriendly terms. The price for the Occidental was to bo £4 (is <sd, and same price for the City, and he (witness) was agreeable to that part of it. Then Mr. Ehrenfried suggested that witness should go to Mr. Lynch and get him to pay £4 (is (id, and that Whitson's beer was to be inserted in his lease for the Aurora, and the other leases. Witness said at the time to Mr. Elircnfried that this would upset the whole arrangement as he was sure Lynch would nob do this. After a great deal of talk witness promised to do his best to sreb Lynch to come to some terms with Mr. Ehrenfried, He asked Mr. Colter to put it in writing, and he went to Mr. Lynch to ask him if ho would agroo. Ho showed Lynch the document, and they agreed to go to Mr. Cotter's next morning. They did so, and Lynch refused to sign anything, saying he would not break liis lease. Ho thought ho was to see Mr. Ehrenfried next day. He did not see him, but he mot .Mr. Cotter at Hesketh and Richmond's office. As he understood it Mr. Lynch was to be a party to the arrangement, and when he refused witness thought lie was no longer bound. Witness never knew Ehrenfried had two qualities of beer, lie told him ho had only one quality of draft beer. From his experience of the Auckland beer there was one beer and one beer only, except, the bottling beers. From the beginning of ISSS the prices of beer tiett of the s;uno qualities of beer as Khrenfried supplied we*. £3 His. He had bought for L , : , . 10s, £,Sss, and one lot off Mr. John Ivcid for £2 13s, and for special ales for bottling ho had paid £4 10s. and he had paid C 4 6.? ti;l to Mr. Ehrenfried for two hogsheads of XXXX ale. He had dealt with Brown and Campbell for two years, and the highest they charged him was £4. less ,") per cent, discount. The average maximum price; he paid to Watson and Murray was £:> 12s (id nett, but they showed full price of £4 Is in their invoices. The invoices from Brown and Campbell from December, ISS7, to March, 1890, wore put in, also those of Watson and .Vlarray. The. witness was cross-examined by Mr. Baiinu: at some length, and the Court adjourned till tea" o'clock next morning.

R.M. COURT. —Friday. (Before Dr. (files, H.M.] .TuDiiMKST Svmmoxsks.— The following; judgment, summonses were disposed of : T. Lonergiin v. R. (.'lover: Claim, £1 S.«, There was no appearance of defendant, and an order was made for the payment of the deb!, in a week, with an alternative of ten days' imprisonment). A. McNamam v. J. Hunt: Claim, £1 7s (id. By consent, an order for tho payment of os per week was made. J. C. Scccombo v. 11. Bennett: Claim, .€l7 17s Id. An order was made by consent, 'that the debt be paid by instalments of £1 a week. James Rue v. A. C. Ward : Claim, £5 5s in arrears upon a judgment summons. There was no appearance of defendant. An order was made that, unless the arrears were paid in a week, the defendant be imprisoned for a, month. J. \V. Henderson and another v. .John Calvert: Claim, £7 l!)s. Defendant was ordered to pay 10s a-week. J. (i'Ki;r.n v. J. Paynk.—This was a claim for .CS. .Mr. \V hi taker appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Campbell for the defendant. His Worship, after hearing the evidence, nonsuited the plaintiff, with costs £1 Is.

POLICE COURT.—Friday. [Before Messrs. S. Y. Collins, W. C. Walker, ami ]■'. C. Clayton, J.lVs.] Uri'NKKNNKss. — Two men, both first offenders, were each tin oil 3d and cOofcs, or in default 24 hours' imprisonment. LiAuuexy.—Peter Wilson was charged with stealing iron, the property of David (louk, to the. value of 30s, on the 10th July. Mr. C. E. .Matthews appeared for the defendant, and pleaded not guilty. David Gouk, Jan., deposed that lie saw prisoner in his father's yard. He saw him taking iron away, and when lie (witness) came after him, and threatened to give him in charge, defendant said it/ was the be*!, thin*; he could do. Defendant was further charged with stealing three iron gratings, the property of Mr. Winstonc, on the same day. Mr. Winstone's foreman gave evidence, and Constable McDonald deposed that he arrested tlie prisoner, who said that a man named .Jack sent him for the iron. He did not know where Jack lived, or who he was. The Bench said they would not .send him to prison, but would record a conviction against him for each olVence, and ordered him to come up for sentence within six months if called upon. Allk'jkd Assault With Intent to Ron. — Frederick Frowein was charged with assaulting Ah Choe with intent to rob. Mr. C. E. Madden appeared for the defendant, and pleaded not guilty. All Ciiee, a restaurant keeper, Queen-street, deposed that he lived in Mechanics Bay. On the evening of the 30th June last he left for home at about twenty minutes past Ten p.m., carrying with him money to the value of about £30 When lie arrived at the Parnell railway bridge a man came behind him and took him by the throat. At first he thought it was in fun, but beginning to feel himself choking ho struggled, and threw the man off. The man was trying to feel his pocket. Me lost no money. As soon as he could, he called out " murder" and "police." There was another man present, but he did not interfere. (Witness identified Kiely as the man.) He was in the habit of carrying money home with him. He identified prisoner as the man who assaulted him. Michael Kiely, a blacksmith, deposed that he knew the prisoner. On the evening in question he mot the prisoner outside the Anchor Hotel. They went in and had dainks, and left again about ten p.m. Prisoner said he was going to get some money, and witness went with him, bub on the prisoner saying that he was. going to .stick up a man, witness refused to have anything to do with it. Under the Parnell Bridge ho saw Ah dice and accused scultling, and soon the latter began to run away, and Ah Chee chased him, crying li Police !" and " Murder !" He saw accused the next day, who said that he had been trying to get some money, to which witness replied that if he had known it he would not have come. Being crossexamined by Mr. Madden, witness said he had been twice in prison—once for larceny, and once for nor, having any lawful means of support. He gave no information to anyone on the subject till the detective accused him of being a party bo the offence, when he told all he knew. Detective Herbert deposed that he arrested the accused on .suspicion for this offence. Ah Cheo identified accused in his presence. He searched his rooms. This concluded the evidence for the prosecution. Mr. Madden then shortly addressed the Court, reviewing the previous evidence and then proceeded to call the evidence for the defence. The accused taking his place in the witness box, deposed that he was at home about ten minutes past ten on the night in question, and did not go out again. He did nob ask Kiely to go with him to

stick up a man for some money. Hβ was a foreigner—a German. John Churton deposed that he remembered Tuesday, the lab July, when he was working with the accused. On the Monday night accused came home about quarter-past ten p.m. Alexander Campbell deposed that on the Monday evening in question the accused came home at about quarter-past ten p.m. He locked the door, and put the key in his pocket. The accused was ordered to take his trial at the next sitting of the Supremo Court.