DISTRICT COURT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume II, Issue 525, 7 January 1878, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

* THIS DAY. (Before His Honor District Judije Ward.) APPEAL CASES. JOHN COGVIN (APPELLANT), HENRY ANDREWS (RESPONDENT). John Cogvin appealed against the judgment given against him in the President Magistrate's Court on the 23rd November, 1877, for sly-grog-selling, on the information of Henry Andrews. Mr. Balmer appeared on behalf of the appellant, and Mr. O'Meagher for the respondent. On being called upon, Mr. Balmer stated that he wished to urge certain grounds against the conviction, and did not wish to rely entirely upon the merits of the case. His Honor remarked that notice should have been given of those grounds, in order to afford the other side an opportunity of responding. Mr. O'Meagher said it appeared to him tha.t the manner in which the appeal was drawn up was intended to afford a surprise, as the defendant merely stated thai lie was not guilty of the offence of which he had been convicted. After some further argument, his Honor said that the only course which appeared to be open for him to adopt was to dismiss the appeal, unless Mr. O'Meagher would consent to waive his right to notice. Mr. O'Meagher said he was not disposed to waive his right. Tin appeal was then dismissed, JAMES ROBERTSON (APPELLANT-), AND HOB'IRT EVANS (RESPONDENT). James Robertson appealed from tin conviction recorded atrainst him in tinResident Magistrate's Court on the 3rd December, 1877, in' a case of sly-grog-sel-ling, on the information of Robert Evans. Mr. Balmer appeared for the appellant, and Mr. O'Meagher for the respondent. Mr. Balmer stated that he appealed against the conviction purely on the merits of the case. Mr. O'Meagher having briefly stated the case, the evidence as taken in the Court below was heard. While the witness Lynch was giving his evidence he made several statements contradictory of those he had made in the Resident Magistrate's Court, more particularly on the question of payment for thg drinks, His Honor administered a severe rebuke to the witness, and told him he had better be careful, as he had already perjured himself. The respondent's case having been closed, Mr. Balmer placed the appellant in the box for the purpose of denying the statements, made with regard to the payment for the drinks. After some discussion as to the advisability of the appellant's evidence, Mr. O'Meagher pointed out that when the case was before the Resident Magistrate's Court Robertson had not given evidenc -. but had made a rambling state-: mant to'the effect that he was drunk at the tirn , and did not remember anything about tire matter. Mr. Balmer did not | proceed with the examination of thp i appellant, Sarah Howden was called on I behalf of the appellant, and stat»d thai I

she was present when the drinks were served, and that no money had been paid for the drinks. Counsel having been heard on each side, His Honor said that there appeared to be a doubt as to the payment of the money, and he must give the appellant the benefit of it. The conviction uf the lower Court would therefore be quashed.