RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 2025, 1 November 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tins Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., 11.M.) DRUNKARDS. Matthew Dearmg, for being drunk and disorderly, was fined 10s; William Simpson, for a like offence, was fined 10s—each wjth the alternate of 24 hours’ imprisonment; Mary Allan, for being habitually drunk, was fined L 5 or 14 days’ imprisonment; Maurice Cavenagh, having been in gaol since the 30th, was discharged ; George Hughes, for drunkenness, was fined 10.9, and for followin" x\Jr Isaacs and striking him with a cane, exclaiming that he had a drawn sword in his hand, a further sum of 10a. Martin M‘Nab, for drunkenness, was fined 10s or 24 hours’ imprisonment. BRUTAL ASSAULT ON A CONSTABLE. Martin M‘Nab, J. M’Lean, and J. M'Doea'd, were charged by Constable Baxter with assaulting him on the evening of the 31st ultimo, while in the execution of his duty. The G-mmi-sioncr of Police, Mr Weldon, conducted the prosecution, and Mr Harris appeared on behalf of M’Lean and M‘Donald. Constable Baxter,(whose face was frightfully swollen, discolored, and cut, said l hat on Saturday night, while conducting Mary Allan to the lock-up, when opposite Messrs Isaacs and Marks’ shop he was passing the prisoners, when he was addressed by M‘Nab, who was drunk, in very coarse and indelicate language. The prisoners were very noisy and disorderly, although Macdonald and M'Lean were perfectly sober. On placing Mary Allan in the lock-up, he returned and arreffed M‘Nab. M‘Lean got hold of the prisoner M‘Nab, and the other man got hold of him (Constable Baxter). He told them to leave go, and allow him to take M‘Nab to the lock-up. After some resistance witness succeeded in getting as far and thrusting him into the watch-house, when the other two prisoners made a rush inside of it There being a great crowd outside the watch-house keeper closed the gate, and fearing the prisoner would be rescued, he (witness) closed the watch-house door. M‘Donald then put his li?t in his face, and asked if he was going to retain them in custody. The witness replied, “Oh yes, you wjll stop.” They declared they would not, apd rushed at the door. A struggle followed, when Ihe witness was thrown down. M‘Lean held him down by the throat, while the other two kicked him about tl.o head, face, and body. Constables Conyers and Ryan confirmed the evidence of Constable Baxter. Mr Harris for the defence, admitted the assault, but attempted to show that it was committed in self-defence, and that the con-

stable exceeded his duty. Witnesses were called to prove this and to speak as to the respectable characters of M'Lean and M‘Donald.

Tiie Commissioner of Police drew his Worship’s attention to the fact that in the strug-gle-Con-table Baxter’s jumper, worth 1/2, had been torn, and th.it Dr Hockcn’s charge for attendance wan incur, od.

His Worship said the evidence showed that one of the men was drunk >nd all were disorderly, and that the constable was justified in arresting them, "The kicking appeared promediiair'd, and that the men had followed the constable fuhy determined to pun sh him Nothing could justify such conduct. Three specimens of humanity, calling themselves men acted like brutes—-got a man down, and one held him in tiiat position while the ot her two Uicke 1 him. So long as he sat on the Bench he would n d allow such conduct to pass unpunished, otherwise there would be an end to order and civilisation in Dunedin. It was not a case for fine. He should therefore mark his sense of the outrage by sentencing the prisoners to two months’ imprisonment with hard labor. Civil Casks. JUDGMENT. Turnbull v. Taylor.—l have carefully considered the evidence adduced in this case, and the contentions of counsel for plaintiffs and (let aidant, and have come to the conclusion that the defendant is liable. As was properly contended on behalf of the plaintiff* the fact of the goods being in a damaged state, seta up a sufficient ca-e to call upon the defendant to answer; tho o>ius\ probandi be ng on the defendant. The plaintiff’s case upon the point of negligence was strengthened by the evidence of the witness Hunter, who stated that in his opinion, the damage complained of could not have occurred by the rolling of the ves el had the cargo been properly slowed. For the defendant the only evidence offered on the question of stowage, was that of the master and second officer of the ship, and their evidence on that point appears to mo to amount only to a mere surmise that the cargo shifted in consequence of the storm in the Indian Ocean. They do not appear to have removed the hatches when the weather moderated, and thus put the matter beyond doubt; but all they say, as it seems to me, is, that the damage complained of must have arisen from the cargo shifting in the storm alluded to. The evidence loads me rather to believe that the damage was caused by (in the words of some of the witnesses) “rough handling,” than by any “ joeril of the sea.” Upon a review of the whole matter, lam of opinion that the liability of the master to safely and securely carry, coupled with the skilled testimony of Hmiter, presents a much stronger case than that set up by the defendant; and judgment must therefore go for plaintiff, Judgement for plaintiff, L 8 10s. The following judgments were given bydefault for the plaintiffs :—Otago Daily Times and Witness Company v. Weber, L,5 for a 1 vertising.—Cowie v. T. Reid, LI 3s.—Same ;y . VYilliams, L 4. ■* Anderson v. M«tfchpwson.—A claim for L 4 17s Gd. Mr Stewart' lor ijjo defence. The evidence showed that the goods were manufactured for Mr Isaacs, and ought to have been charged to him. Verdict for the defendant.