RIVERTON POLICE COURT.

Western Star, Issue 13, 7 February 1874, Page 5

RIVERTON POLICE COURT.

Wednesday, 4th Febetjaey, 1874. (Before H. M'Culloch, Esq., 8.M.)

Davis was charged by William Oliver with selling two glasses of whisky without a license, on 2nd January last, at Groper’s Bush. Inspector Fox conducted the prosecution. Mr. Wade, instructed by Mr. Matthews, appeared for the accused. William Oliver said he resided at Groper’s Bush on 2nd January last. He was working in in the smithy on that day. He remembered Macfarlane and Flatt coming to Davis’s house between 10 and 11 in the morning. He had dinner with them between 1 and 2 o’clock. They were there all day. In the afternoon he heard Macfarlane ask for two nips of whiskey. Mrs. Davis took the decanter off the shelf and poured out two nobblers. Saw Macfarlane give her half-a-crown in payment, and Mrs. Davis gave him Is. 6d. change. Did not see Flatt pay for any. Was working in the smithy all day. Macfarlane went away in the evening beastly drunk. Did not see Flatt leave. Macfarlane went in search of his horse. Davis was present when the whisky was paid for. He (witness) had nothing to drink all day. Davis was working at the new house putting up the framework. Patsy Levelle was present that day. My wife -was at Davis’s on 2nd January. Cross-examined by Mr. Wade : It was between 3 and 4 o’clock when Macfarlane called for the two whiskys. Have had whisky out of the same bottle. Was never asked to pay it. There are a few houses round about, but no hotel nearer than Mount Pleasant. Have never seen whisky given at dinner. Macfarlane’s horse went along the road. Had to put Macfarlane out of the 'shop for fear of the horses kicking him. Davis was present at dinner on the day in question. Levelle was not at dinner. There was no work to do for Macfarlane or Flatt. "Witness was engaged at Dunedin to work for Davis. On the following evening Davis said that all his work was going to Riverton, and that witness had robbed him. ■ Layed the information on the following Monday. It was not true that witness was going into partnership with a man named Peter. There was no convenience for myself and wife. Witness is a stranger in the country. Have left Davis’s employ and am working for myself in Riverton. Mary Ellen Oliver said she was the wife of previous witness, and resided at Groper’s Bush on 2nd January. Macfarlane and Flatt came to Davis’s between 10 and 11 in the morning. There was no one in the house when they came. They were quite sober, and stayed there till 6 o’clock. Witness had two games of drafts with Macfarlane before dinner, and he shouted drinks round. Recollect him going away, he could hardly walk, he had had too much drink. Did not see Flatt pay for any. Davis was present at 4 o’clock when Macfarlane paid for the two drinks. Cross-examined by Mr. Wade: Heard my husband say if Davis would give him £9 out of £l4 due to him he would he satisfied, and leave his employ. We had a separate hut to sleep in. Macfarlane and Flatt were called and contradicted every thing that the two previous witnesses had stated.

Inspector Fox said the case was not one got up by the police. The house was not known as a

regular shinty where any one could go and ge drink. The man had always borne a good cha* racter, and his house was looked upon by the neighbours as a respectable one. His Worship said he had never heard a case in which there was so much false swearing. He had his own opinion as to who were the perjured parties. There being nothing to warrant a conviction, he dismissed the case. Cassels v. Grant. —This was a claim of £3 10s. Plaintiff stated that on 10th June, 1869, he accepted a Southland Government voucher from defendant in satisfaction of a claim. He had repeatedly endeavoured to get it cashed, but without success. In 1871 he presented the voucher for payment at the Treasurer’s office, in Invercargil. The officer in charge stated that he could not pay it then, but would do so the following day. As he (plaintiff) was going to Dunedin, he left in the hands of Mr. Colyer for collection. Hearing nothing of the matter, he made inquiries, and was informed by the Government the amount had been paid to Grant, with Bs. 6d. interest, on the 6th June, 1871. Defendant stated that ho had given the voucher as stated by plaintiff, but that he had never received the money; neither had he signed the voucher. The signature to the voucher—which had been shown him some time ago—was a very good imitation, but not his writing. Some nine months ago he had made a declaration before a magistrate to that effect. Mr. M'Culloch said he had no option but to nonsuit the piaintiff.