Show F y ii EDS RECORD ahe decision of justice bikun tendered yesterday in the case of mcgrath vs Min hugh which defendant 20 and coots was a to nearly every one who listened to tha evidence I 1 lave always looked upon judge B iken as being im partial in his and basini cf them solely apon the evidence in hand lut this one not only in my opinion ant the opinion of others who ara thoroughly competent judges 19 an boa and to say the least a mild criticism in the arst place the evidence did not show that mr min huh as an inn keeper had violated any statute which prohibits them from to receive and entertain As mr mcgrath with vt ife and child hao been incites of bis public houe sinca october and lie such now not any attempt ev en WAS inide to prove uch refusal they had been boarders and lodgers at his couo for months nd as such the comforts and corn en of the hotel were extended to them no complaint tin made until mis mcgrath was confined to her room by sickness alien her husband dicov 1 ered upon one occasion that his wife atas not supplied with drinking vater and ahen mr vas ques concerning the apparent nep elect lect that had he known bhe wanted water he would have procured it this is all this n the entire foundation of the complaint with which j mr maurice mcgraith arms into court with three attorneys toai thira it ia aust possible that the defendant did on this particular on to supply abo needed en i but tharo was no refusal to doi the kituto does not siy that an annl ceper furnish er tra in cases where his lie confined to their rooms LT sickness sic kniss I 1 to Ls taken sick and quartered at the park cita hotel re quana nuree 01 not scheduled as among provided for who should bear the atia esi eno the proprietor of the hou or if anc law requires the to do so it should require to pay the physician as well no jude decision in this j case is not anstice in stice it 13 not law neither is it babad upon a showing of tl 0 evidence mr has TIO i ro diw lie knipl neglected on gnp to fu nih extra attend ince to 0 sick person who was a yuet at nis hoi el bavo hean policy for him to do so but it he choso to ignore an little which ar sometimes accorded to botel guesta that vas his onn s and not that of tl e court the decision so far 13 it aws maecs it obligatory upon all to resolve their boerl iceo an bo tha circumstances may ie quire it marh 4 1882 |