MAGISTERIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5192, 24 December 1884, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

» * ; CHRISTCHTJRCH. : This Day. j (Before R\ Beetham, Esq., R.M.) > j Drunkenness, &c. — Five men, none of > : whom had been previously convicted, were > ', fined 5s each for drunkenness. — Another • ; man on remand from Dec. 17, was ordered ) to pay 10a (id maintenance, and a fine of 03. > Shekpstealino. — W. S. Palmer was charged with stealing sheep, to the value of .£lO, the property of Messrs M'Clatchie and M'lntosh. Mr H. H. Loughnan ap--1 peared for accused. Mr Thomas appeared ,for the prosecution, and said that the offence had been committed at Whitecliffs ; portions of the skins and carcases of the i sheep were found in accused's slaughter , yard, but the heads could not bo recovered. , The arrest had taken place only the day , previous, and Mr Thomas wished for a remand. Accused waa remanded to Tuesday next ; bail allowed — himself in i>loo, and two sureties in .£SO. Miscellaneous. — Selwyn Davie3 was fined 5s for allowing a horse to be at large, and Frank Cuddon the same amount for driving without lights. — W. Lake, who had driven a vehicle on the Papanui road footpath, wa3 fined 10s. — The affiliation case, Marshall v. Whittington, was withdrawn by Mr Stringer, complainant's counsel ; Mr M'Connol, for defendant did not apply for costs. i CIVIL CASES. j Judgment was given for plaintiff by de- ' fault in the cases of City Council v. Needhain, claim £5 14 a 9d ; O'Shanassy v. Murphy, claim £0 14s ; Kelsey Bros v. ' Newport and Sutherland, claim £& 5s 3d ; , Joyce v. Eeeve, claim .£3 4s. — Wright v. '■ Eose, claim .£5 I 3 lid, for groceries, &c, j supplied in 1879. , Judgment for amount claimed and costs. ' Giles v. Cookson. — Claim .£lO, value of luggage detained by defendant, or that the ] luggage be given up. ,Mr Raphael for defendant. Plaintiff said he was a teacher by profession, and had recently left Akaroa. He had gone to defendant's hotel (the Southern) and stopped three days ; during ] this time he had got very drunk, and had spent £& or £0 in liquor. He asked for his account, and Mr Cookson figured on a bit of blotting paper and told him he owed £4i 193 6d. Witness asked for particulars, and was told that .£1 7s was for board and lodging, and the rest for drinks. He denied that he owed for any drinks, but tendered the .£1 7s, and asked to be allowed to take his box. This defendant had refused, and now put in a set-off for £i 19s 6d. j Mr Cookson said that plaintiff had not paid for anything he had been supplied with during the three days he had Btopped in the house. After the account was rendered to him plaintiff had gone out ; returned, and witness was sorry to see that he was intoxicated. Plaintiff then asked for his luggage, but he never tendered the amount due for board and lodging (jCI 7s). Had he done so the luggage would have been given up. Plaintiff had had champagne tor himself and his friends, and had j ordered beer at dinner for all in the room, j His Worship pointed out that the only drinks for which a publican can recover under the Act are those supplied to lodgers in moderate quantity with meals. (Section 133, Licensing Act, 1881). He believed Mr Cookson's statement that plaintiff had had the champagne and other drinks without paying for them, but 63 for beer supplied at dinner was all that Mr Cookson could recover. The judgment was that-i the goods be given up on payment of .£1 j 13s.