Magistrate'S Court. (Before Major Keddell, S.M.) Thursday, July 19.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume III, Issue 22, 21 July 1900, Page 2

Magistrate' S Court. (Before Major Keddell, S.M.) Thursday, July 19.

Police v. H. Middleton, licensee of the Koyal Hotel, on a charge of supplying liquor on Sunday, July Ist, to two men, neither being a lodger or a traveller. . Mr Hamilton appeared for defend- , ant, and asked that tw» other charges be taken with the first. Constable Parker detailed the circumstances of the ease. Oonstable O'Halloran j»ad gone in on Sunday, Tulj 1, and found two men in the bar with each a glaei of beer in front of him. The barmaid took away one glass, and the constable the other and the men denied ordering the beer. Alice O'Keefe, called, deposed to being in the bur pn the Sunday, July 1, iti the afternoon. Had got the key for the purpose of opening the bar* While in there, two men walked in, and immediately after Constable O'Halloran came in. Set one of the drinks on the slide. Was in the bar at the time. The constable asked for Mr Middlwton, and witness went for him. v To Mr Hamilton : Was in the habit of oec.ifeioi\aiiy rolieTing ths barmaid on week days. The men did not ask for driuk. The two drinks ware for the kitchen. Thomas Hogan, sworn, was in the Royal Hotel on the Sunday in question. Entered by the side door. Saw a glass of beer on the slide. Saw last witness behind the bar. Went for the purpose »f getting beer if possible. Had no time to ask for drink when Constable O'Halloran cams in. The latter asked for Mr Middleton. To Mr Hamilton : Always took a long glass of beer, nerer a small one. Couldn't sea what last witness was doing in the bar. William Cotter, sworn, corroborated the evidence of la*t*~witness. Was in the bar * Tery short time. Constable O'Halloran, sworn, deposed to swing two men coming along the street «n the Sunday in question,

sffi^m'ffiI^SEEE^BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKMSCTgEui* ft JT^'jJiEjHMHn^^^^K^^^^^^^HHHKßSKeCt bit . were ~fi|^ippn#tr on* »ne slide, id* home wstiwtt conducted, and witnes* had sees in»n ordered ftwajr on formet occftsiont. Alice O'Ke«fe, re-called, opdatd th» the slid* just before the men cam* ia v Had no authority to sell liquor en thai day, and would not hare done so it aaked. Oonstablo ParkeT, •'worn, deposed «hat the Eoyal Hotel was a well-con-ducted house. Mr Hamilton held that there was no case. The evidence showed ih<\i n<y drinks had been called for, and no money had passed. There wast nothing to prove what liquor wai ia the glasses. It was not illegal to hare the bar open on Sunday. He cited a case ia point, and held that no conviction was justified in this case. His Worship thought these ease* were all much the same. The police had to depend on men like those who | trj to break the law, to give evidence, ! These men always made a point at | standing up tor tha publican. It was desirable to get convictions of this sort, but these were very hard to geh There was not sufficient evidence to establish a conviction in this case* The defendant would be acquitted on all three informations.

BREACH OF BOROUGH BY LAWS. Wainiate Borough Council v. Cooperative Aasoeiation en * charge of erecting * building ef wood and iron, which, according to the Borough By-law*, should hare been of briok or stone. Mr Hamilton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Clement for the defendant. Mr Hamilton explained th« division of the borough into inner and outor areas, in the former of which no building of wood or iron could ba buih* Tb.6 Association hail asked leave to remove an »ld wooden building. Tin Council agreed «s *ho building would not be new though a little new timber might bfl used. Sub3equently the •ouncil found that the building was almost wholly new, and ordered the staying of the building. This had no* been done, and th« present action wm the result. A, M. Taaffe, town tlerk, gar« trh dence a* to the existence of tbe inner ar«a and the by-law in question. Re> memberod the application of th« Co-optratir* Association to r«mor« * building. A committee had betux formed to txainine th* building, and they had reported it by no means an old building removed. Completion had therefore been ordered to be stayed. Crow examined : Tha council under' stood that two buildings were to bt shifted and joined into one without being taken down. The minutes of the meeting when the by-law was agreed upon were produced, Mr Clement held thai the Association had ha 4 leave to act aa they had done. They never stated that tbo building was to be shifted as a who] a. When given notice to stay completion the frame work was up and nothing has since been done but oover it with iron. The buildings were very old and would not stand Bbiffcing as a whole. The by-law vim of no force and had been treated by the Counoii as a nullity. The Council had treated it as such in another caie, and tha Co-operative Association conaidered they were within their rights in acting as they had done. The by-law iv question was not in comfonnifcy with the Municipal Corporation Act, and was really a. dead letter. J. H. Dean, sworn, deposed to interviewing the Council and getting permission to shift two old buildings and to fovin one from these. It would not have been possible to' shift the buildings as a whole. One had a shingle roof. Was not sure whether h» had made it dear that the building* w«te to b» shifted piecemeal. Pulled down the old buildings and oommanced erecting the new building in which more new limber was nsed than old. Had the frame up when told to desist. Then put galvanised iroa on both walls and roof and completedHbe building. There was another building pufc tip in the xown entirely of wood of which nothing was said, though it was close to an engine. Mr Hamilton objected to thia other building being mentioned. The fact of another breach of the by-laws did nofc make the first one right.

Cross-examined: The witness had ,jj eV er had any intention of shifting >jhe building* aa a whole. Thought the councillors individually knew the tolildings in question. Bid not think Council were trying to persecute ihe Co-operative Association. Knew in potting -on the iron that he was (cominitting % breach of the by-laws. U"r Clemtnt considered th« notice to completion had been given too ,lit«. Th« right to »bift the buildings ■«q tb»y pleated was given with th« nto shift. The by-law had •not been pr«p«rlj enacted, and did not -conform exactly to the -conditions laid (down. In the minute book there was aothing to show what th« inner area ' vm; the report of the committee appointed to revi»e the by-law was not placed there. Tne seal ef the borough ws not on the Ho ip«oial ,order has yet been made to bring it into force. $r Hamilton submitted that per.mission to remove does not imply permission to take 'down and ra-build % bjiHmg. They had no pewev to b i,int che 'latter permission. His Worship considered that the request and the -permission should thirl been made in wrltiug. His "Worslrip reserved his decision. In the case of Davies v. Wrathall, J[r Hamilton for plaintiff, Mr olemant ior WrathaM, His Worshi-p non-euited ,th» pJaintift. As regards the counterclaim, ha held there was no tmdeiiee «o support it, and that was ahio^ iisiZllloSod. Sir Clem&nt claimed oosis for one .day on which Wrathall appeared with ■four witnesses. Davis was not ready 3o prooead. Mr HaauHon explained fhat onft of ibt chief wituesses for the plaintiff (Mr & Moi-toii? took ill suddenly, and that ,te A* reason of the adjournment in qaosticn. £n« matter was lieli over till next coart day. R. Hart v. S. Boreham, adiourned from la3t court say. Mr Clement appeared for plaintiff. Defendant pleaded not inddbted. B Hucfc, sworn, "had let a house to defendant some tima ago. Lately •served a notice on defendant to quit the house. The latter had taksn the tonse as a weslcly tenant. Defendant refused to pay ►rent or giv« up pos3«3MOn. Cross examined; Defendant "had paid something formerly but not evory week. Mrs Hat* had let the house. Fad seen the placs occasionally and i. ,vas kept in good rer-? i.-. Tba tenant fai.lkuockad the pla.ee au-^ufe. Mrs Hutt. sworn, deposed to knowiigßot«U*ni. Oaiy about 14s rent hadb«enp«ud this year, The tencn got the placs in good repair and now it uas such that the Borough Council lud condemned it. There had been former attempts to oust Boreham. Cross examined: The posts of tho fence wore ohopped down, presumably for fnewood. At thi» stage the case was adjourned (till ukou court day, owing to the latemess of vhe hour.