RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2639, 2 August 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A, 0. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Casks. Bradshaw (Provincial Treasurer) v. Caulfield and another. —Mr Bathgate for tiie plaintiff. Adjourned to Monday, the 20th, m consequence of the sickness of a material witness. Bradshaw v. Mercer.—Adjourned for the same reason. Britton v. Rees—l.lo 10s 6d—a claim for the maintenance of a child in the Industrial School. LI 10s was paid since the service of the summons. Judgment for the plaintiff for the balance, with costs. Wood v. Brown- LI. The debt was admitted, and the defendant ordered to pay the amount by instalments, (Before A, C. Strode, Esq., James Fulton, Esq., and I. N. Watt, Esq., Resident Magistrates.) Regina, on the information of Matthew Holmes, v. J. Macaudrew (Superintendent), J. 11. Bradshaw (Provincial Treasurer), John Bathgate (Provincial Solicitor), and W. H. Cutten. Mr Macassey for the prosecution; Messrs Haggitt, Barton, and Bathgate for the defence. The depositions of witnesses for the prosecution were read. After which the Bench said that the evidence against Messrs Bradshaw, Bathgate, and Cutten, was not considered by them sufficient to sustain the charge; but that there was sufficient to establish a case calling upon the remaining defendant, James Macandrew, to answer. The usual warnings were given, and his Honor said he would le ive the matter in the hands of bis solicitor. Mr Barton applied to the Court to award to the defendants, Messrs Bradshaw, Bathgate, and Cutten, his clients, expenses for the Joss of time and inconvenience to which they had been subjected. It was not right that they should bear them, and it was not right that the public should have to sustain the expenses of the prosecution, although they had been incurred by the defendants in the performance of their public duties. If the usual course of filing an information in the Supreme Court had been taken, costs would have been paid by the party obtaining leave to file the information; but by adopting the course which had been taken nobody was answerable. If application were made to the Crown, the Crown replied they did not take proceedings ; and if to a private individual, nothing was to be obtained. He respectfully submitted that the prosecutor should hold those who were acquitted harmless ; for they did not wish to take proceedings on the ground of malicious prosecution. He believed, however, justices of the peace had power to award costs, and he therefore asked that they should be given Mr Macassey objected on the ground that, had Mr Reid not objected to give evidence as to the part that the defendants had taken in the construction of the work, they too would have been called to answer. They had their remedy, but in seeking redress in the Supreme Court he would be compelled to answer the questions put. Mr Haggitt then addressed the Court, to ■show that there was no case against his Honor. We cannot do more than give the heads of his objections, which were as follows : Ist. There was no evidence whatever before their Worships that any work what*

ever had been done on the 14th July, as 1 charged in the indictment. 2nd. There was no evidence whatever that those works were being constructed in the Harbor of Eunedin, or that there was such , a harbor. 3rd. That the defendant as Superintendent could not be indicted on account of such works being carried out by his authority, because the 33rd section of the Marine Act takes away the power of indicting him in such a case. 4th. That assuming a nuisance really was proved, the injury to the public would be so small as to be inappreciable, and consequently would not amount to an indictable nuisance. Mr. Maccassey asked to be heard in reply The Court adjourned for half an hour. On resuming at 2.45, the Court said that they considered Air Macassy might address the Court in reply to the legal points raised by Mr Haggitt. Mr Alacassey addressed the Court at some length. Mr Haggitt replied. The Court took time to consider and will give their decision to-morrow. Matthew Holmes v. James Macandrew, Superintendent of Otago. Mr Macassey for the complainant; Mr Haggitt for the defendant In this case the informant charged his Honor that he did, on or about the 21st July, act wilfully, oppressively, and corruptly, by authorising and continuing the construction of a road across Anderson’s Bay, w. 11 knowing the same to be an indictable offence. The case was adjourned till to-morrow.