RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume XVIII, Issue 1124, 4 March 1885, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

At the above Court, on Monday last, before W. H. Revel!, Esq., R.M., the following business was transacted : —

Police v. J. Barclay.— Mr Copland appeared on behalf of the Police, and MrM'Coy for the accused. Accused was charged, under the 146 section of the Licensing Act, 1881, with unlawfully selling liquor to. lsaac Walker on Sunday, 22nd ultimo, while he was: in a slate of intoxication. — Mr Copland cal'ed Constable Daubney, who, having-been-sworn, stated that he arrested Walker- on Sdnday, 22nd ultimo, a.t'7.30 p m., coming outof the yard from the Railway Hotel in a state of-intoxication; -Whan arrested Walker had a small' flask. of brandy,. Witness informed Mr Barclay of what he had done. — Isaac Wjilker; carpenter, was next examined. He stated that on the night in question he was in the Railway Hotel at 7.3o'o'clock and had a beer, which was served by a female, f Slot liß'tiidnV know who she was. — Michael O'G-orman saw --Walker on the night in question enter! lie" Hotel and come out about five minutes afterwards.— For the defence, Mr M'Coy called James Barclay, who said that on the evening of the 22nd ult. he was in and about the -kitohen •of 'the hotel. The- bar "doors v were;iocked, and he had the keys in' his 'possession. No person could enter the bar without first, getting the keys from him. He didn't see Walker that evening. He did not serve him. with any drink, nor did any person in the hotel do jo tohis knowledge., , He had refuVed Walker drink ' a ' fortnight"' before Meffiftdiijjp rfßall^ldsksfbjf ?briftid^stofiliSf| to any for tome t time^pas^.,— Mrs Barclay/ oh oath, said thStrihe was upstairs with a friend '.(Mrs I Frai t e 1 r).«6m > about t 4.3o : p'.\n. f ttfi rß*p.m.r B*p.m. She didnot-see Walkjer'on tlie-22ncr'n;ltimo. ''-^•MrV FraserVorrobbratedtbe evidence of the last witness.'-^. M'Ledown'ey' (servant at the Railway Hotel)' gave immaterial r&fidenoef— /Ttfe Magistrate, in Bumming up/'said- that, fronr the evidence ''of the Constable < and Walker, lie had no doubt but that Walker was 'served with'- a pint .of beer, Accused would stand convicted.' Fined £2 and 'costs (31s.)* '• A second 'charge' 1 was -preferred against accused, under the 155 th section of tbe Licensing Act, for selling liquor during prohibited 'hours.'— : Mr M'Ooy ■ contended that 'no ' two convictions' icould arise out of one ' and ' the same case.— -His /Worship, who decided' to hear the' evidence, which was the saine'as that bffidredin the -previous case, dismissed the charge wilh costs to. defendant (9s) and prof es* ■ sional fee, (215.) , D. Daviey'.J. Treloar.— Claim of £6 10a. Mr Firilayson for plaintiff; Mr M'Coy for defendant, who pleaded not indebted. Mr. 'Finlayson said thefacts of the case were- that' defendant's father (now" deceased) had got a' judgment summons against plaintiff and the defendant went loglaintijf to see about payment of the money, and plaintiff offered iome hay,, which defendant accepted as payment . /towards the 'judgment summons. .H«jestimated i.he jf«ylb'f pf the tiay—two^trffigonlJ loads— at 3 tons 5 cwts, which he-va!C«dlt £2 ' per too. Plaintiff considered: the old debt was settled- ..Until! .recently, when he got judgment against defendant for £20, Mm

Treloar, (executrix in the estate), the.i .put in the old judgment, and the Clerk of the Court retained th'l amount from the judgment summons t against, defendant, and. therefore the hay was' stillJ unpaid.— Mr M'Coy. said that the transaction about, the hiy was between Davis and the late Mr Treloar. — Darin sued Mrs Treloar for, f^he hay and was non -suited owing, to his not proving that Jas. Treloar was her agent. — His {Worship said there was evidently a " try on " to do Davis out of the money.- Jas. Trelqur got the hay for a debt that was due to his father, and this debt was virtually settled and the judgment still.stood in' the. Court, although Treloar, had received payment by the h»y. Davis sued Mrs TreJoar as the executrix in the estate, and was non-suited because he failed to prove that J. Treloar was her agent.o With that he sued J.- Treloar. (the son), the person who got the hay, and he {His Worship) was sorry to say that* he could not equitably give judgment against him. The debt was without doubt legally due. The case would be dismissed ; and a summons, free of cost, granted to Davis against Mrs Treloar.