RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3511, 9 October 1882, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Dat. (Before Captain Preece, R.M.) DRUNKENNESS. Michael Brosnahan,aZ_9Thomas Brosnahan, pleaded guilty to a charge of drunkenness. Ia consideration of the prisoner having been locked up since Saturday night, and this being his first . appearance on any charge, he waß dismis&ed with a cautioD. FURIOUS HIDING. Thomas Johnson, a respectable looking young man, was charged, on the information of Constable Shanaghan with having on Sunday, Ist instant, furiously ridden a horse along Hastings-street. The accused pleaded not guilty. Constable Shanaghan deposed, to having seen tbe accused, shortly after 12 o'clock on the day in question, galloping a horse which he was riding along Hastings-street towards thePpit. People were coming home from church at the time, and several persons complained to witness about the furious rate the horse was being ridden. .Constable Foster gave corroborative evidence. The accused was proceeding up the street at a "terrible pace," and had any persons been in the middle of the road they could scarcely have escaped being run over. For tbe defence the accused asked one or two immaterial questions of the first witness, and also called George Burton, whose evidence was simply to the effect that Johnson had " cantered" but not " galloped " the horse. He could not say how many miles an hour the horse was travelling. His Worship inflicted a penalty of £2 and costs, or in default 14 days' imprisonment. MALICIOUS INJURY TO PROPERTY. _ Tamati, Rawira, Tohu, Hirini, Putake, rTe "Waaka, and six other aboriginal natives, were charged on the information of. ■-■William Wahanga Brougbton with having, on the 18th of August last, unlawfully and wilfully damaged, injured, and spoiled a building of wood in course of erection at Omahu of tbe value of £50, being an indictable offense. Mr Lee appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr McLean for tbe defendants. 11l openiug the case Mr Lee said the proceedings were brought under section 5 of the Malicious Injury to Property Act. The alleged offence took place some time after dark between the 18th and 19th days of August, and was continued until the following Monday. The building that had been destroyed was one in course of erection at Omahu on apiece ol land over which tbe native chief Renata had exercised ownership for a number of years. The informant, who was a half-caste, had since the death of his parents, some twenty years ago, been living with Kenafa, and together they carried on business as sheepfarmers, and occupied tbe same land. In August last the informant started building a house for himself on a portion ot that land, and at the time the injury complained of was done to it it bad been weather-boarded and partly roofed, the value of the timber 1 and labor expended on its construction so far amounting to about £70. The — evidence that would be produced against the defendants would be circumstantial, because the alleged offence took place after dark, and while the carpenters were not at work. The evidence would Ysbow that the workmen had left everything right on the 18th August, and that, •when they came back on tbe following morning, they discovered the building hacked and sawn into pieces, and their tools scattered about the place. On the following Monday the whole of the men now charged with the offence were seen on the spot completing the work of destruction and spoil by throwing the timber, &c, into the river, and on the principle that a man in whose possession a stolen watch migh f be found would be arrested as the thief it would be contended that these men who were caught in the act of completing tbe destruction of the informant's building were no others than those who had commenced it. This was the gist of the evidence tbat would be produced, and alter the Court had heard it a committal would .be applied for, because the very act in which the men were discovered was itself a malicious act, and he (Mr Lee) took it that it was not for His Worship to go into the question of justification at all should Huch a plea be advanced. There was, in fact, no reason rwby any color of right or of interest or title should be allowed to avail, as most of the accused did not even belong to tbe district where the alleged offence took place, and could not therefore lay claim to any interest in the land on which tbe building was as they did not possess such, neither did the fact that the house was erected on native land prejudice the in ?iny way, accord-

ing to a precedent that had been set in the decision given in the case of the Queen v. Niramoana. Mr Lee then called two witnes?e?, who were cross-examined by Mr McLean with a view to showing that the land on which the complainant's house was being erected was in dispute, and had not been passed through the Native Lands Court. The case was still proceeding when we went to prees.