MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2836, 12 July 1900, Page 4

MAGISTERIAL.

TE7JUKA —TUESDAY, JULY 10, 1900. (Before Mr C. A. Wray, S.M.) E. Elliott v. A. W. Wright (Opawa), claim £3 6s for bailiff’s charges. A counter claim for rent was put in. Mr T. Oheyne Farnie for plaintiff and Mr As■pinall for defendant. Plaintiff gave evidence that he had been employed to act as bailiff by defendant, and claimed for seven days at Bs, with 10s costs of a- warrant. This was the customary charge. He had been offered 20s, and subsequently 40s in settlement. Would have accepted the latter as he considered 30s was due to defendant on an old rent account, for which he expected a receipt. The defence was that plaintiff had been ■employed as bailiff because he lived on premises upon which distraint had been made, and he was promised 20s for acting. When the claim for £3 6s was put in it was disputed, but 40s was offered without prejudice. Defendant now claimed for rent owing on an old account of some (our years’ standing. Had made repeated demands for this, but had been put off from tone to time on the plea of poverty. After going into the question of accounts His Worship gave judgment in favour of defendant for £1 4s 3d.

A. Lees and Co. v. Veitch, judgment summons. Mr Aspinall for judgment creditor. Defendant was examined as to his means, after which His Worship declined to make an order.

Angus Mackay was charged on differentinformations with committing breaches of the Licensing Act, by inciting one John Fleming to drink, with permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises on May 20th, with unlawfully selling liquor to one John Fleming on May 20th, with permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises on May 24th, and also with unlawfully selling liquor on May 27th. Mr Raymond, who appeared for accused, pleaded not guilty. It was agreed to take the first batch of informations together and hear the last separately. Constable Gillespie asked for the pro■duction of accused’s license.

Mr Raymond produced this under protest. The accused, it was admitted, was, at the date the information was laid, licensee of the Winchester Hotel, but had since transferred his interest. The license' was only produced for the solicitors of the transferee, Mr Nichols. After outlining the case Constable Gillespie called John Fleming, contract ploughman, whose evidence in brief was that on the 17th May he received payment for a ploughing contract, £2l 5s 6d. Part of this belonged to John Tindall. He went to Winchester on his to his home at Kakahu. He stopped at Mackay’s, had his dinner and a drink, and then got some repairs done at the blacksmith’s. Had another drink with ■Mr Hall. -Witness tried to get the cheque cashed ns he had some small accounts to nay. Got it cashed eventually by Mackay, who gave him £5 and a cheque for £l6. Paid Hoskins, a saddler, a small account, also what he owed Mackay. This occurred about 4 o’clock. Witness’ team meanwhile was standing on the road. He became intoxicated. Remembered being awakened by Mackay and told he was not fit to go home. Was drinking all the following day. . On the 19th intended to go home, and went for his horses. Found them in the stable yard; one tangled in a fence. Did not go home. On Sunday recollected a man named. Bishop complaining that his horses were in his garden. Had a drink with him. Did not recollect much else. The £5 was all spent on Friday. On the Saturday missed the £l6 cheque, and was told the missus, meaning Mrs Mackay, had it. Did not remember giving it to any person. Did not think he

had 50 drinks on Sunday. Recollected Mackay bringing him some beer and some luncheon to his bedroom. Had no recollection of what took place on Sunday. Remembered Mr Hall trying to get him to go home. Was .not fit to do so. Was pretty boozy on the -23rd, but did not think-he had 49 drinks. (Mr Raymond said the drinks charged included “ shouts.”) On the 24th Mr Airay was looking for him. Could not leave that day. Was supplied by Mr and Mrs Mackay, the barman, and sometimes by the servant. On the 30th had tapered off, and Mr Jeffree helped him with his horses and started him home. On the following day had a conversation, with Mackay about his money. Was told it was all spent, but the horse feed was to be paid for. Had a drink and borrowed a pound from Mackay. Had his dinner too. When he went to the hotel no arrangement was made about board and he had not been charged with any. Knew he stopped for 13 days in an intoxicated state, and lived principally on suction. . In cross-examination witness denied that his object was to get his money back. Had stopped at the hotel with previous landlords. It was not his habit to try and get out of paying hotel scores. May have shouted pretty freely at the hotel, but did' not got drunk elsewhere. When he went away with the horses could drive all right, and got them out of the dray. Was too ill to take the harness off. Geo. Haar, blacksmith, Winchester, gave evidence that Fleming was sober when he saw him on the 17th. Saw him several days afterwards and he seemed all right. Albert Hoskins, saddler, Winchester, stated that Fleming paid him 15s on the 17th. The same evening he brought over a bottle of whisky to witness’ house. It was drunk amongst several friends. Told him it was about time he went home, but he said he was going to stay at the hotel. He was quite sober then. Saw him on Friday, and he was sober. On Saturday Fleming brought over another bottle of whisky, and proposed to get a third. Witness’ wife told him she should throw it out if he did. Did not see anything more of him until he was going away, except casually. He appeared quite sober then.. Had known different landlords at the hotel, and Fleming stopped with all of them. Was present when Fleming asked to have his horses taken out. Knew that Fleming was shouting freely. Thomas Hall, farmer, Gapes Valley, saw Fleming on the 17th, and suggested that he should take charge of his cheque. Saw him again on the 22nd at the hotel. He was drunk then. Advised the man in the bar not to give him any more drink. In reply to His Worship witness said that Fleming was sleeping when he saw him. He answered questions sensibly—in a fair sort of way. John Tindall gave unimportant evidence. John Airay, farmer, Rangitata, deposed to giving Fleming a cheque for work done. Had occasion to look him up at Winchester on the 24th. In his opinion he was drunk then. Asked Mackay if it was not time he went home, and Mackay said it was no use, as he would pnly go to Geraldine. Harold Jeffree, farm overseer, Rangitata, stated that on the 30th Fleming was in a pitiable condition through drink. Remonstrated with Mackay for keeping him there. Witness and Mackay yoked up the horses and Fleming went away. Replying to Mr Raymond, as to whether if Fleming was so bad it was wise to trust him with horses, witness said they were quiet ones. Anyway it would be better for him to be killed outright than poisoned. The former was the easier death. H. A. Ewen, bank manager, stated that the cheque £2l 5s fid was paid to Mackay’s credit on the 18th. Jas. Andrews, constable at Temuka, gave evidence as to receiving the statement of accounts from Mackay. Had only asked for an account for the liquor supplied. Mackay gave - him a statement as to Fleming’s proceedings. The account shewed that he had spent £ls 19s in drinks, including several bottles. For the defence, Mr Raymond contended that Fleming was a boarder, and as such entitled to entertain bis friends, 5000 if he liked, on Sunday. He quoted Knott v. Miller, 12, N.Z.L.R., p. 397, as to a definition of boarder. Hoskins’ evidence was clear that there had been no incitement to drink. The only charges to answer were that of permitting drunkenness on the 20th and 24th. He called

Angus Mackay, licensee on the dates mentioned of the Geraldine Hotel, gave evidence as to the cheque transaction, also as to Fleming stopping at the hotel on the 17th. Took his horses out and covered them when personally requested by Fleming to do" so. The £l6 cheque was not taken from Fleming, but the latter handed it over in the presence of witnesses. Did not see the use of cashing his own cheque. Fleming shouted freely, but did not always drink each time himself. Had never helped him to bed. Fleming had his meals regularly. The account was correct as far as the drinks were concerned, but there would probably be an error in charging Fleming with a bottle of whisky on Sunday. His Worship remarked that Fleming appeared to have shouted 17 and sometimes 19 times. How often would he drink himself ? Witness thought perhaps on seven or eight occasions. On resuming after the luncheon adjournment, evidence was given by J. McHary, wool classer, and George Campbell, employees at McCaskill’s wool works, and boarders at the hotel, Peter Campbell, who lodged there on the 20th, Edward Crowe, sheep dealer, Frank Webster, and Richard Webster, George Meredith, Bert Meredith, .and George Tomlinson, visitors at the hotel. All deposed to Fleming’s sobriety on the 20th and 24th. James Moore and Arthur Hill saw no drunkenness on the 24th, but did not see Fleming. Heniy Loach, a boarder who occasionally assists in the bar, swore that Fleming was quite sober on the 20th and 24th. He could have taken his team away at any time. His Worship, after reviewing the evidence, said that although it was apparent that Fleming had stopped too long at the hotel, and taken more than was good for him, yet the police had hardly maintained their case in respect of the dates selected, viz., the 20th and the 24th. They relied a good deal on the amount of liquor charged to him, but it did not follow that he had consumed all this. Beyond the quantity charged on the 20th there was no evidence that Fleming was drunk. On the 24th, there was the evidence of Mr Airay that the man was muddled when he saw him, but again others who saw him later swore to his sobriety. He was not satisfied the charge had been proved in respect to those particular dates. There was also no evidence that the man had been incited to drink, and there could be no doubt that he was a lodger and entitled to entertain his friends. He must dismiss all informations, no matter what his private opinion of the conduct of the licensee might be. Angus Mackey was then charged with supplying liquor to a traveller, which liquor was not consumed by the said traveller. Mr Raymond appeared for accused. In this case it appeared that a young man named (Sharpe, a bona fide traveller and an old friend of Mackay, visited the hotel on (Sunday, 27th. Drinks were served, four rounds in all. Sharpe, when two or three had been served, remarked that it was his turn. Some drinks were served after this, but Sharpe seemed uncertain whether they were to be paid for by nim. Evidence was given by the landlord, J. McHay, and P. Campbell, that the drinks supplied were called for by Fleming, McHay, Campbell, and the landlord. Sharpe did not shout. The other men were all boarders. His Worship said there was a doubt ac to whether a sale had been made to Sharpe, and the information would be dismissed. The Court then rose. WAIMATE—WEDNESDAY, JULY lltb. (Before Mr J. Manchester and Mr Graham, J.Ps.) Andrew Wixon and a boy 13 years old named Hape Whaitiri, both of whom had been remanded on the 4th instant, appeared to answer a charge made by the police of

having, broken, entered, and stolen from a hut at Waitaki river mouth a pair of waders and a pair of trousers, the property of Jonathan Mitchell, on or about the 3rd June.

Mr Clement appeared for Wixon. The evidence of Jonathan Mitchell, John Pukuraki, and Constable Gough, of Glenavy, was taken, which showed that a hut owned by a company of eight shareholders, of which Mr Mitchell was custodian and part owner, and which is each year occupied and used as a fishing hut at the Waitaki river mouth during about seven months, ■\fas locked up by Mr Mitchell on the 28th April, and on the 3rd June he found the lock forced, door opened, and some articles missing, amongst others a pair of waterproof waders. •, After hearing the evidence, Wixon was committed for trial at next sitting of the Supreme Court, Timaru. The charge against the boy was dismissed. The Court then rose.