RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 4684, 21 February 1877, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, 20th February. (Before J. Batbgate, Esq., R.M.) rM^ llifL^S^hlreofTcabTS:LW ~Stfe^d£ff the defendant. Judgment was given for the nlaintiff for L 2 lla 5(1, with costs. PTeller v. John Thomson -C aim for,Ls .damages, for an assault committed at bt. Kilda. Mr ftfouat for plaintiff, Mr Denmston for the -defendant. The case having been partly heard, -was adjourned until Thursday. Thomson v. Hall.-His Worship gave juclg^ ment in this case as follows t-'The plaintiii seeks to recover L4O, alleged to be due upon money lent upon two occasions, and 15s, the prkL of waggonette curtains. lam of opinion that, as regards the first loan, the presumption is in favour of the defendant, and that it has been paid and discharged In regard. tj the second loan of L2O, in September, 1875, T find that the defendant's wife, now deseued, borrowed from the plaintiff the sum of L2O to complete the purchase price of a section bought by the defendant; that the wife of defendant conducted his it oney transactions generally, and that, in obtaining the latter loan from the plaintiff, she acted as his agent, having an implied authority so to do. I therefor 3 find the defendant liable in repayment of the said sum of L2O to the plaintiff, with costs. The item of the curtains stands oath against oath, and is -disallowed. -~ . , Archibald Currie v. Wm. Barns.—Claim of L 34, for rent. This case, which has been pre--viously before the Court, was adjourned, as de--fendant's solicitor did not appear.

PORT CHALMERS. Tuesday, 20th February. (Before T. A. Mansford, Esq., R.M.) Sly Grog-selling.—Thomas Montague was 'Charged by the Police with having committed this offence at Purakanui on the 13th hurt.— Mr C. R. Chapman said that he appeared for the defendant, whereupon Mr Lewis rose and stated that he also appeared for the defendant -with his friend Mr Chapman.—His Worship objected to two counsel appearing on one side, •but as there seemed to be considerable doubt as to who did appear for the defendant, he (deiendant) would be allowed the benefit of two ■counsel.—The first witness called was T. Rey- , nolcls, n labourer residing at Purakanui, who deposed that he was in Montague's house on the 13th. He ordered two glasses of ale, but he could not say if he paid for them. He was •drunk. The drink was supplied by Mrs Montague. The house is a boarding-house, and •defendant had had meals there. He was sufficiently intimate with the defendant to have had a drink at his invitation. If he had money he paid for his drinks, but if he had none he supposed he got them on tick.—Mary Paganini said she was in defendant's' house with the wit--ness Reynolds on the day in question, and had •a glass of ale with him. He ordered them and they were supplied by defendant's wife. She Relieved they were not paid for. Mr Montague had spoken to her ai to the manner in which she should give her evidence. —After •counsel had addressed the Court, the defendant i ■was placed in the box, and said he did not remember if any drink was sold in his house. iSomewasgiven away, but none was sold. Mr and Mrs Paganini boarded with him for nine days. He kept beer for the boarders, who could have itjat dinner time or-instead of tea. The beer was open to any in the house to drink. His "Worship considered the case fully proved, but -reserved judgment until another case against *he same defendant was heard.—Thomas Montague was again charged with selling ale without ■a license on the 28th January, at Purakanai. Fred. Ingram, who boarded wkh the defendant, had a glass of ale with Mrs Paganini on the :28th January. He expected he ordered the ale, and supposed it would be charged to him. JEe could not say who served him. When he paid his bill, no special charge was made in it lor drinks. Mary Paganini was in defendant's house between two and three o'clock on Sunday -afternoon, the 28th January. Ingram was there. He treated her, and they had two cups -of ale. Mrs Montague supplied the drinks, and Ingram told her to put them down, which meant sticking thorn up. Witness made out the bill, and one shilling was put down in it. Witness knew that the shilling was for drinks, because she put it down when they were supplied. His Worship considered this also a ■clear case, and fined the defendant Ll2 10a and costs, in each case, and intimated that if he ((defendant) was again brought before him on a ■similar charge, he should inflict the full penalty.—Fanny ~H.oga.ri, alias Fanny Burke, was charged with having committed a, breach -of the Licensing Act, at Purakanui, on the .11th iust. Mary Paganini deposed to having ibeen in Mrs Burkes house about two o'clock on ■ the day in •question. She called for one glass . and two pints of ale, and paid Is 6d for them.— . Kenneth M'Donald gave corroborative evidence, having been in Mrs Paganini's company •when the drinks were served. His Worship Jfined defendant L2O, and costs. CIVIL OASES. Warren v, Dalent —A claim for L 6. was adjourned for a fortnight. In Baird v. M'Kenzie, judgment was given -for Ll2 18s. Mackley v. Flynn, L 7 Is, and Macldey v. Mirk, L9 2s Id, went for the plam'tiff for the full imounts, and costs.