RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 3411, 2 September 1885, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TIMARU— TUEBDAY, SEPTEMBER IST. (Before J. S. Beswick, Esq., R.M., T. W. Hall, and H. J. LcCren, Esqs., J.P.s) DEUNKENNES3. Two first offenders charged with drunkenness were fined 5s each. BBEACHES OF THE POISONS ACT. C. B. Eichbaum was charged by the Police with unlawfully Belling a certain poison (chlorodjne) to "one Edwin Best" without the bottlo being distinctly labelled with the word " POISON," and without the name and address of tho seller of the poison being thereon. Mr Eichbaum pleaded guilty, and was fined ss. E. M. Watkins was also charged by the Police with (1) unlawfully selling a cortain poison (chlorodyne) to Arthur Eaton without making an entry m the " Poißon book," and without obtaining the signature of the purchaser; and (2) with unlawfully selling tlie said poison without the bottlo containing it being distinctly marked " POISON " and bearing tho address of the seller. Inspector Brohnm appeared for (he Police, and Mr Tosswill appeared for Mra Wotkins, pleading "ji.it guilty." The Inspector put m the Gazette of 29th June, 187G, declaring chlorodyne to be a poison under the 3rd clauso of the Salee of Poison Act, and also a list of the names of chemists authorised to Bell poisons, among which was tho name of defendant. Mr Tosswill objected to the list because it did not bear an imprint showing it had been printed and published by authority — under the hand of the Government printer. After argument the Bench overruled this objection, holding that under clauso 10 of tho Act the list was admissible as evidence. Arthur Eaton then proved ho bought a small bottle of chlorodyue at Watkins' on tbr 22nd August. The bottle wos wrapped m paper, and witness did not soe any notice indicating poison on the wrapper. W. Salek, assistant at Wutkins', who sold the chlorodyne to Eaton, said lie did not label the bottle poison, and that it bore no marks to that effect. To Mr Tosswill he said he did not look particularly at the wrapper; it might have been marked poison on the back. Elizabeth Best identified the bottles of chlorodyne found at her house. The papers that were around them had been burnt. C. B. Eiehbaum, a licensed seller of poisons, said chlorodyne was a "patent" medicine. The bottles containing it were wrapped m paper and not marked poison. (Ho produced a bottle and showed it to the Bench.) This was the case. Mr Toaswill then submitted that the Order-in-Council which was gazetted, did not include chlorodyne among the poisons. Ho submitted that tho only poison eet forth m it as added to the first ■ :hedule was "digitalis." The Bench held the opposite view, and Mr Tosswill therefore culled R. F. Stewart, manager for Mrs Watkins, who said the bottles were sold m the same state as they were received. This was all the evidence. The Bench fined defendant 6s on each charge. CIVIL CASES. His Worship, before the civil cases were gone on with, gave judgment m tho case O. Matthews v. Gunn and another. After referring shortly to the evidence, he said the plaintiff would be non-suited, with costs 9s, solicitor's fee 425, and witnesses' costs 255. Judgment by default was given m the following cases :— R. Webster v. R. Double, claim £5 10s 4d and costs 14s ; J. Craigie v. Balcke and Ingle, claim £1 and costs 6a j A. Hawkins v. A. Wilkinson, claim £4 7s and costs 7a. The case M. de H. Duval v. Jno. Jackson (chairman of Directors Royal Flouring Mills) — Claim, £52 10s, was adjourned for six weeks, on the understanding tliat the case could be called on sooner by giving a week's notice to the other side. Silus Sibly v. R. B. Sibly— Claim, £9 8s 3d for work and labor dono. Defendant filed a aet-off — paid on promissory note, £11 6t ; cost of two summonses, los ; interest, 5s 4d ; hire of horses and drays, 18s ; steeling wall hammer, 2s 6d ; total, £13 6s lOd. Mr Knubley appeared for plaintiff, and Mr White for defendant. Mr Knubley said Mr White agreed to all the items m the particulars of the claim with tho exception of one— 9 days work at lla per day. Ho put plaintiff m the box to give evidence on this item. To Mr White, plaintiff said ho was to get this rate of wage -while he worked nt Pighunling Creek «toro bridge. Defendant offered him these terms. In answer to the Bench, Mr Knublov said ho objected to the items m tho set-off. In August, 1884, defendant executed a deed of composition with his creditors (among whom was plaintiff), and that these items being due some months beforo the deed was drawn out they wore settled by this deed. Mr White said defendant had paid tho amount of tho promissory note to Hall and Meason on plaintiff's behalf, and was therefore entitled to include it m the sot-off. The amount owing plaintiff at the time tho deed was drawn was — On a contract, £14 j for wages, £3. After some argument, plaintiff, m answer to Mr White, said the amount paid by dofondant on tho bill was owing to him (plaintiff). He hnd arranged with defendant to pay it, and nover expected to bo como upon for the amount. To Mr Knubley ho said when ho accepted tho deed of composition all accounts wero settled between them. The wage? ho wns now suiDg forbad been incurred since then. Mr White called defendant, who said he paid £11 6s on a promissory note for plaintiff. At the time the arrangement was mado lie owed plaintiff £17 j tho £11 6s had never been taken into account between them. Plaintiff had promised several times to pay tho monoy. Witness then gavo evidence on the other items m tho set-off. To Mr Knubley witness admitted ho had no intention of charging plaintiff for horee hire. Ho charged him for " steeling " the hammer, becauso his blacksmith had had to do the work. The Bench gavo judgment for amount claimod, less tho item 2s 6d m the set-off with costs, and solicitor's feo £1 Is. Tho Court then adjourned.