The  defendant  pleaded  "  not  guilty,  by  statute  21,  Jac
oh.  4,  see.  4."

After  hearing  the  evidence  in  the  cause  at  the  trial  the
irned  Judge  found  :

"  (1)  That  the  plaintiff  caused  the  defendant  to  be  urved  witb  the
tice  repaired  by  the  itatate  ;  (2)  that  Joaeph  Austin,  the  husband  of
B  plaintiff,  hod  the  habit  of  (Irinkmg  intoxicating  tiqaon  to  eicGM  ;  (3t
it  the  bar-keeper  of  the  defendant  served  liquor  to  plaintiflfs  husband
thin  the  faaitding  occupied  by  the  defendant,  and  wherein  liquor  was  sold,
thin  twelve  -monthB  after  the  serviee  of  th«  said  notice,  and  within  six
mtha  of  the  bringing  of  tha  within  action,  otherwise  than  in  the  terms  of
rpeciil  requisition  for  medical  purposes,  signed  by  a  licensed  medical
■ctitiorer ;  [i)  that  after  the  said  aotice  was  served  on  the  defendant,
d  before  such  liijDor  was  served  to  the  plaintiff's  husband  by  the  defen-
nt's  bar-keeper,  the  defendant  instructod  the  said  bar-keeper  not  to
misb  liquor  to  the  plaintiff 's  husband,  and  that  such  liquor  was  served
the  plaintiff  *s  husband  without  the  knowledge  of  the  defendant "
id  ordered  judgment  to  be  entered  ("or  defendant,  but  that
should  not  be  entered  until  the  4th  of  January,  1882 ;
id  refused  the  defendant  his  costs  of  the  litigation.
