MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2571, 23 August 1899, Page 4

MAGISTERIAL.

TEMUKA.— Tuesday, August 22nd. (Before Mr C. A. Wray, S.M.) & E. Williams v. H. Williams. MrFarnie for plaintiff. Jn this case a maintenance order had been made against the defendant in 1893. He now applied for a variation of the order from 20s to 7s per week. r J his Mr Farnie opposed. There had been a good deal of correspondence on the subject, and defendant had filed an affidavit. After some conversational discussion Hi« varied the order from 20s to 15si A 'first offender, resident in Tirnaru, was charged with disorderly conduct in the public streeton Sunday. Mr Raymond appeared for accused, who pleaded guilty. After hearing an outline of the case His Worship cautioned accused and fined him 10s and costs, taking into consideration a testimonial as to his good character. K. Chute, licensee of the Terauka Hotel, was charged with Sunday trading. Mr Raymond appeared for accused, who pleaded “ not guilty,” The facts as given by P. McGuire, a labourer residing at Timaru, were that

on Sunday, August 13th, he drove to Terauka with a friend and walked up the main street. He saw Mr Chute with whom he had lodged in Timaru, and Mr Chute asid “ Hallo, Paddy, just nut from Timaru?” Witness replied “ Yep,” and afterwards entered the hotel and he was served with a medium glass of beer, Chute having a drink aiso >: was not the first drink he had taken tha-’ day in Temuka, bat he was perfectly sober. He had been known to MrChutas a Timaru resident tor 17 years, anhad only been in Temuka occasionally He was uncertain as to what Mr Chute drank. It was from a small glass.

Mr Raymond dwelt at length on the law regarding travellers, and the right of publicans to drink in their own houses. In this case, although the licensee had not actually asked McGuire if he were a traveller yet he had every reason to accept him as such. He knew him as a Timaru resident, and the greetings exchanged showed that he believed him to have just come from Timaru. He contended also that no offence was disclosed by the landlord drinking with a customer. It was reducing the case to an absurdity to admit that a landlord might drink in his own house but not if anyone paid for it. His Worship reviewed the evidence, and considered that the licensee was justified in assuming that McGuire was a traveller within the meaning of the

Act. Now, however, that there was so much more travelling than formerly, travellers and licensees must understand that a bona fide traveller was only entitled to refreshment on arriving from a journey. He must not go from house to house repeating his dose. Licensees would do well to protect themselves in future by making more particular enquiries as to where travellers had come from and where they had last had refreshments. Under the circumstances he did not feel justified in convicting and the case would be dismissed. A similar charge against the licensee of the Wallingford Hotel was withdrawn, Constable Gillespie expressing himself satisfied as to His Worship’s ruling on the subject of travellers. W. M. Hopkinson v. Walsh, claim £3 6s lid. Mr Ramie for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed and costs. The Court then rose.