RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 1987, 23 September 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

■♦■ (Before H. M'Oulloch, Esq., R.M.) Monday, September 21. George Gustave Schmidt, a foreigner, was charged with having, on the 17th day of September, in the town of lnvercargill, assaulted Ellen Dessarthe, with intent to commit a rape. Mr Wade appeared for the prisoner. Sergeant Purdue said that as the principal witness— Mrs Dessarthe— was unable to attend, in consequence of injuries she had received, ho wished the case to be remanded for eight day9. By that time it was thought by the medical attendant that Mrs Dessarthe would be fit to appear in Court to give her evidence. Mr Wade had no objections. He asked Hi» Worship if ae3used could not be let out on bail. His Worship said he could not think of ao« 1 cepting bail at this stage of the case. The prisoner was remanded for ei»ht days. Twelve citizens, for permitting cows and horae§ fco wander afc large within the boundaries of the municipality, were mulcted in the usual fines and costs for each animal so trespassing. Jatnes Walsh, charged with having been drunk and disorderly in Tay street on Sunday afternoon, said that he was " ashamed." His Wor« chip said that was a good sign. Accused was fined S3, with the usual alternative. John WCarthy was charged with having, on the 3rd September, aud since that date, permitted Eichard Blackham to manage, superiaterd, '■■ j. become in effect the keeper of 1m licensed house, known as the Harp of Erin Hotel, in Dee street, contrary to the 45th olause of the Licensing Ordinance, 1874. Mr Wada appeared for accused, who pleade I not guilty. Sergeant Purdue, who conducted the ca3e fop the prosecution, called Richard Bluokham, who said that he had been in possession of the housa since the 2nd mat. M'Carthy had been in and out, but he had not lived in the house since that date. Witness had in a manner bought the house, but they had not yet succeeded in getting the license trans* ferred. Mr Wade drew the attention of the Court to the fact that in the Ordinance of 1873 there was no provision whatever as to permitting or not permitting the landlord of a licensed house to leave it in charge of another person. But in the amended Ordinance of 1874, which came into force on the 31st August, there was provision made for allowing a landlord to be absent for fourteen days only. However, the Ordinance did not come into force till the 3 1st August, and M'Carthy had left the house on the 3rd September, and it was no doubt a fact that the terms of the Ordinance were not yet known to landlords, as copies of it had not arrived till quite rocently in Invercargill. His Worship drew counsel's attention to the 35th clause of the Ordinance, which provides that the landlord of a licensed house shall reside on and make it his usual place of abode. Mr Wade — The 45th section of the amended Ordinance says—" It shall be lawful for the keener of a licensed house to absent himself for any period not exceeding fourteen days, with permission from the Resident Magistrate," It was true that that permission had not been obtained in the present case, but it was not known that it was necessary, Hl3 Worship, taking all the circumstanoe3 of the case into consideration, dismissed the information, against M'Oarthy, but warned Blackhaii to consider his position, as he had no legal right whatever to keep M'Carthy's house opon, as whatever private arrangements might have been made between the parties, the license had not been transferred. Tuesday, Septbmbee 22. William Maaarty, for being drunk and dls« orderly at half-past one o'clock on Tuesday morning, was fined ss, or 24 hours' imprisonment. John Woods, for being drunk and disorderly at the same hour, wa3 fined 10s, with the usual alternative, it being his second offjnes. Tulloch v. Sylees.—Wr Wade for plaintiff, and Mr Harvey for the defendant. This was a claim for £54 11s 2d, being £21 lent to defendant at various times and in various sums, and £33 ils 2d private debts paid by plaintiff for defendant. For the defence, Mr Harvey denied all liability in respect of the £21 cash alleged to h-ive been lent, and for the other sums he admitted that they were correct arithmetically, but the defendant did not owe them, as they had been considered and allowed for in a deed of settlermnt recently made as between the parties. Prior to the d^el of settlement having been effected, an adjustment by arbitration of the co-partnership accounts as between the parties had been initiated, but through the intervention of friends, tha attempt to adjust matters by arbitration was relinquish-ji, and a settlement effeeteJ, Tulloch agreeing to give Sykes a lump sum of £400, and Sykas agreeing to resign all his rights i;i respect of their joint properties to Tulloch, disturbances having arisen between the parties as partners. Mr Harvey maintained that the sums noT sued for were put forward by Tulloch as advances towards the co-partnership settlement, and to be tiken into consideration by the arbitrators. Mr Wade contended that the mere fact of Tullooh having put those accounts before the arbitrators, either by mistake or otherwise, did not prove tliafc they were partnership accounts, or that they would have been dealt withes such. He rend the deed of settlement, and draw especial attention to the concluding clause, ia which he urged that there was nothing to show that Tulloch hid released iSykos from debts contractel irrespective of their partnership. His Worship, hiving hoard evidence for and against plaintiff's case, together with the pleadings of counsel, intimated that he would reserve his decision till Friday. Stewart v. Srow>i.—Mr Harvey for plaintiff, and Mr Wade for defendant. Mr Wale opened by stating that the defeno wis that the defendant did not know whether the statement contained in the Simmons was true or not. Mr Harvey stated that his client sought to recover damage an I loss sustained through de> fendant having failed to deliver four ti'is of kerosene to H. 3. Fish, sen , painter an i glazier, being £4 for the four tins oF korojane, 83 3t Uw costs, and £i for k>33 of tiau incuiVdl in onsequence of the non delivery. W. Stead said that he had been in Mr Brown's employment, ani as driver of his baggage wi,^gon he remembered having received four tins of keros9ne from Stewart to take to the shop of Mr H. S. Fish. He did take them there, and the person in charge of Mr Fish's shop assisted him to lift them out of tha dray and to place thsoi on the sidewalk, where the attendant in question told him (witness) to leave them. H. S. Fish, before being sworn, asked who wa3 to pay his expenses. Twenty man were standing idle in consequence of his having to be inCourt. Hia Worship said that Mr Fish shoull have asked the question whon the summons wa3 served upm him. Being in Court, he muit submit to be sworn, irrespective of any such consideration, Mr Fish, having been sworn, aaid that it was j list possible that the tins niighthave been delivered as described by Mr Stead ; but he (witness) di I not think so. At any rate he had never heard nor seen anything of them at his shop. Plaintiff was nonsuited, with costs ; His Worship saying, in reply to remarks by ilr Fiili, that if that gentleman insisted he would hive 'o allow his expenses, which were allowed tJ Mr *Fisli to the extent of 7s 6d.