LEGAL & MAGISTERIAL NOTES

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XI, Issue 518, 22 November 1900, Page 19

LEGAL & MAGISTERIAL NOTES

QUARTERLY LICENSNING MEETINGS, DECEMBER, 1900. Eranklin—Saturday 1 Courthouse, Pukekohe Eden—Monday 3, Borough Council Chambers, Devonport City of Auckland—Tuesday 4, S.M. Court, High-street, Auckland Waitemata—Tuesday 4. Courthouse, Helensville Parnell—Wednesday 5, Borough Council Chambers, Parnell Manukau—Wednesday 5, Courthouse, Onehunga Ohinemuri—Wednesday 6, Courthouse. Paeroa Waikato—Wednesday 5, Courthouse, Hamilton Bay of Islands —Wednesday 5, Courthouse, Kawakawa Bay of Plenty—Wednesday 5, Courthouse, Tauranga Marsden—Thursday 6, Courthouse, Whangarei Thames —Friday 7, Courthouse, Thames

As a result of the recent sly grog-selling prosecution, which offence was alleged to have been committed in Howe-street, two persons have been committed for trial on charges of perjury.

Last Thursday William Townley was ’fined £3O and costs at Dunedin, for sly-grog selling at Port Molyneaux, in the Clutha district. The offender being a hard working man, and not in a position to pay, was given one month to pay half the fine, when, if necessary, application of time could be made.

T. J. Algar, a waiter, brought a suit against J. S. Baker, licensee of the Club Hotel, Wellington, to recover £6 alleged to be due to him as wages. From the evidence of the plaintiff, it appeared that he was engaged by Baker as head waiter, but that subsequently he was superseded in that position. He asked Baker if he was to go, but the latter told him to stay on, and promised him 30s weekly wage. The defence was to the effect that accused had made a disturbance in the hotel, and had been told by Miss Thompson, the housekeeper, that he could leave it if he liked. There was a dispute also as to the number of payments that had been made to plaintiff by Baker. It was claimed by the latter that Algar had been paid up regularly every week. Algar asserted that an arrangement had been made between himself and Baker that his wages should be 30s weekly, but defendant said he had only mentioned 30s on one occasion, when he paid Algar 5s extra as a bonus for extra work done in connection with dining-room alterations. Baker’s statements were in the main confirmed by three witnesses. His Worship gave judgment for an amount of 255, paid into Court by defendant, and ordered Algar to pay costs. Mr Atkinson appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Young for the defendant, The New South Wales Full Court recently delivered judgment upon a rather interesting point arising out of a case under the Liquor Act of 1898. A farmer and a vigneron named George Elsenmonger, residing near Inverell, had delivered to a customer less than two gallons of wine, which formed part of two gallons which the customer had ordered and paid for. He was proceeded against upon the informatioh of Seniorconstable Rank, at the Tingha Police Court, for having sold the wine in less quantities than two gallons without holding a license authorising the sale; and Mr Marriott, P.M., of Inverell, before whom the complaint was heard, convicted the defendant, and directed him to pay a fine of £3O. The fine was paid by Elsenmonger under protest. The matter subsequently came before Mr Justice Cohen on an application for a writ to set aside the conviction, upon the ground that the magistrate had no jurisdiction ; that the applicant did not sell liquor in quantities of less than two gallons ; that he, by reason of section 13, of the Liquor Act of 1898, being a person exempt from the provisions of section 45 of the Act, could not be prosecuted under the latter section; that the evidence disclosed no offence, and did not support the conviction ; and that the conviction was bad in not ordering a forfeiture of all liquor in possession of the applicant, with the vessels containing the same. His Honor considered the matter of sufficient importance to refer it to the Full Court, and it now came before that tribunal for decision. The court held, Mr Justice Cohen dissenting, that there was evidence to support the conviction, and therefore discharged the rule nisi, but without costs.