RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2659, 25 August 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A, (J. Strode, .Esq., R.M".) Civil Cases. Hay v. Possiuaski. LG. —The plaintiff ac kuowlcdged having received 10s on account Judgment by def mlt for the'plaintiff for the balance ivith costs. Jenkins v. Somerville. L 3 Is.—Judgment oy default fur the plaintiff for the amount with costs. M. A. Wilson v. Jardine. L2 for board md lodging. Judgment for the plai itiff b} default for the amount with costs. .North v. Wish art. —This was an informa don against the defendant for placing afenct across a road at Portobcllo on the 20th June. Mr Haggitt for the prosecution, Mr Stewart objected that the Court had no jurisdiction, as the ground is private property, and secondly, that no oh -traction was placed. Mr Haggitt briefly explained the facts of the case He said that the com plainaut, observing the defendant erecting a fence that obstructed access to the bush adiere he obtained firewood, remonstrated with him, hut the ohs ruction was continued Information was laid and cost of proceedings incurred, since which the obsti notion had been removed. An offer was t|ien made to withdraw proceedings on condition of costs being paid by the defendant. This was refused On the ground stated by Mr Stewart. The prosecution was therefore continued with a view' to re imbursement of cod*. In order to prove the position of the nad line, a map was produced which was objected to as evidence by Mr Stewart, and was disallowed it not being a certified copy of the record maps. In ev deuce it appeared that the fence waerected on the 19th June; norice was given ■n the 25th by the clerk of the Load Board to remove it, and it was removed on the sth August, tin information having been previously laid. (The record map was produced from the Road Board office, and the witness pointed out the site of the obstruction.) Evidence was given as to the accuracy, of the surveys. After argument on the points raised by Mr Stewart, His Worship sai l that the jurisdiction of the Court was clear under the Load Board Ordinanca, bvidence wa>called for the defence. A brother-in-law ot the defendant, Lewis, said the prosecutor removed pegs- and cut down trees within the boundary m. de by himself. He denied Wishart having erected or removed a fence on the road line. The case was ultimately [dismissed on the ground of nonjurisdiction. THE TELEGRAM LIBEL CASE. Wilson and others, employees of the Daily Time* and Witness Company V. Brent: For expenses as witnesses* in the case of R' gina v. Barton. Mr Barton for the plaintiffs ; Mr Haggitt for the defence. Mr Barton maintained that the prosecution was private, and therefore the witnesses were entitled to be paid by the nominal prosecut -r. His Worship said he was bound to consider whether the offence was indictable or not. Mr Haggitt hold that, in criminal prosecutions, witnesses were not entitled to expeu*es. All public prosecutions were on information laid by an individual on behalf of the Queen, and no witness was entitled to expenses. The Attorney-General was the actual prosecutor, and it was necessary to make Mr Brent the nominal prosccu or for the sake of complying wdth the law'. His Worship, in giving judgment, said he had no douht it was a public prosecution, and that Mr Brent \r-s merely employed r.s a public officer ;the whole proceedings being carried on by the Qoverpmenjt. Mr Barton asked for a nonsuit, in order that the case might be lajd before the Legislature. His Worship agreed to the request, stating that,he did not think the desired to wrong any one.