RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 3762, 22 October 1886, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TIMAKTJ— TmjBSDAr, October 21st, 18SG. (Beforo J. S. Beswick, Esq., 8.M.) DBUSKESUBSS. A flrat offender for being drunk was fined 5». Michael O'Connor, on a similar charge, j was fined 10b, and his Worship, after I severely cautioning the accused, warned him that if he cror cnmß before the Court agnin he mould be sent to prison. The record against acenjed was a yery bad pno, there j being no fewer Umn seven charges of drunkenness, and three of creating a disturbance, j ro-isling and assaulting the police, respectively. TOUCH CASES. James Howoy, for leaving » Tohiolo unattended contrary to Borough By-law 6, elaueo 11, was fined ss. Cases under tho Police Offences Act were dealt with as follows :— I. McDonald for allowing a calf to be nt large was fined ss; Henry Fendsll for allowing ft horse to stray on Maori Hill, 5s ; Snrah Lowo for letting three horses wander m LeCren street, 10s j George Taylor for allowing ono horse and two cows to wonder m North street, 10a ; Hugh Dcviue for having threo horsea and a cow at large on the roads, Washdyke, 20s ; and Geo. Tyrrel for unlawfully tethering a calf on a street, Maori Bill, 59. W. DABBY V. DONALD MCXBNKAN. Mr M. J. Lynch for the plaintiff. Mr J. ;H. Butter (attorney) appeared for the defendant. This case was brought under section 17 of the Distress and Beplerin Act, 1868, nnd plaintiff Bought to recovor from the defendant the sum of £50 as damages for that McLennan did on or nbout tho 28th September, 188G, dist'""" the goods and chattels of the plaintiff at I'imaru, and did for muny dnjs thoreaftor wilfully neglect to make out, sign, nnd deliver to the plaintiff an inventory of the goods so distrained, as required by the Act named, and the plaintiff also cla i»cd the Bnm of £50 for that defendant, after distraining, wilfully neglocted to deliver such bill of charges as by the "Act named la required. Mr Lynch, after stating tho short facts of the case, called ' ; William Darby, who said ho held the Club Hotel undor a lease from McLennan. On the 28th September 5 diitress was put into witness's houße, the bailiff ;wbo ■ distrained being one Daly. The distrain', was ligned by J. H. Sutter. Witness had ■ received no inventory of tho goods seized, or bill of charges from the bailiff. On the 12th October witness saw Daly, and tho latter told him that he was still m possession. Witness had received no notice that the bailiff hart been withdrawn. Ho had been mnch annoyed by the bailiff, tin " wind up " being that on Wednesday night tho bailiff had proved so offensive that witness had to get a constable to take him out. Witness added that sinco tho bailiff had been m ho had not been allowed to serve customers with liquor and the bailiff took all tho moneys, witness having no check on what had been taken. The bailiff had also been buying and selling without authority. Witness recognised the bill of aalo given to Ward ond Co. The rent was due on the 28th September, and at 5.30 p m on that day the distraint was mado. • In reply to Mr Sutter,. witness eaid tlmt when he took the Club Hotel from A. J,

r.u-woi,., his liabilities were £1350, and that his liabilities now were about £1800 or |£iOOO, not. £2300. ??iiie months rent wcrr now due, umountinj; to some £350 or £',V.Vi. Had never offered to pay the rent m cash, ' but h.-id don.' so by promissory notes, one of i which had l>ren dishonored. ■ : lie-examined b\ Mr Lynch : Only some ' £125 was due at the timo the bailiff WuS put ' m. When Ward's bill of sale came to hand, > Mr Sutler did not say anything about taking 1 out his own bailiff. Tho latter remained m ' all the time, not under tho hill of sale, but : under the warrant. 1 A clerk named Murphy, gtivo corroborative 1 evidence of what took place at the interview at Mr Lynch's office on August 12th. J. n. Slitter said that ho had met with considerable trouble with plaintiff as regarded tho rent of the hotel. Plaintiff had promised to pay it, nnd witness hnd given him timo to visit Dunedin nnd Christchurch to sco various firms nbont advances. Finally, as Ward and Co. refused to have anything to do with it, ■witness put a bailiff m "on the 28th September. As the bill of salo was given soon after, witness instructed the bailiff to withdraw. To Mr Lynch, witness admitted that ho could not be sure of his dates, and declined to enter into a discussion of matter foreign to the caso before the court. As Mr Lynch pressed him on this, His Worship reminded Mr Lynch that the kernel of tho question before the court was, Did Darby suffer any injury by the course taken ? His Worship then asked Mr Sutter if ho was auro lie had instructed the bailiff to go out, and on receiving an answer m tho affirmative, as all the facts of the case were now before tho court, gave judgment for defendant. Mr Lynch then asked His Worship to state a case, as he intended to appeal. The court adjourned at noon.