RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2640, 3 August 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., E.M.) (Before A, 0. Strode, Esq., James Fulton, Esq., and I. N. Watt, Esq., Resident Magistrates,) • Regina, on the information of Matthew Holmes, v. J. Macandrew (Superiutendent).I'he Bench dismissed tire, case against the Superintendent, (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) ’ The case of Smith against, George Proudfoot, in consideration of the defendant having made good the alleged damage, was dismissed. Matthew Holmes v. James Macandrew, Superintendent of Otago.—Mr Macassey for for the prosecution; Messrs Haggitt, Barton, and Bathgate for the defence. The charge was that of acting wilfully, oppressively, and corruptly, by authorising and .continuing the construction of a road across Anderson’s Bay. Mr Macassey asked for an adjournment of the case for a week, in order that he might have opportunity of filing an injunction in the Supreme Court. Mr Barton objected, and asked that the case might be proceeded with at once, as it was desirable*such a charge*, should he decided upon as soon as possible, Substantially it was the same charge as in the* case dismissed, and his Worship was well aware it was a rule of law that no man should be harassed twice for the same cause. At the present stage be could notask for-adismissal of the case, but when the evidence was gone into it would be seen -that the charge was identical with that just dismissed. Mr Macassey urged as his reasons for desiring an adjournment, his concurrence in the objection raised by Mr Barton, that proceedings of the character entered upon should commence in the -Supreme Court. The force of that reason was itensified by the decision givenjby the Magistrate ; for id seemed to follow that a similar decision would be arrived at in order that the proceedings.of the Court might be consistent. His Worship said he was in a difficulty about the matter. He was unwilling to bind the complainant to a particular day, but on the other hand the chai’ge against the Superintendent ought to be disposed of as soon as possible. He was willing to assist the prosecution as far as possible— Mr Macassey did not desire assistance, but he wished to have opportunity df making application to the Supreme Court. The Judge would not sit till Monday, so that

would be the earliest cisioh g£|thc|^iifrt. My to further adjournment. W. the ground that it was evidently purposed- first;to ascertain the success or fkilure-of to the Supreme Court.t -Shbuld it succeed, the matter would not be heard of again in the Magistrate’s Court: if it failed the prosecutor would have that Court to fall back upon. He trusted his Worship would not allow himself to bo placed in such a position. it was ultimately arranged that the should be adjourned to Thursday. The Court adjourned to J1 o’clock tomorrow.