MAYOR'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2812, 22 February 1872, Page 2

MAYOR'S COURT.

This Day. (Before his Worship the Mayor, and J. B. Bradshaw, Esq., J.P.) DRUNKENNESS. James Collins was lined 10s. OBSCENE LANGUAGE. Nelly Edwards, alias Ellen Grntt, was lined LIO for this offence. The tine was at once paid. OFFENCES AGAINST THE BVE-LAWS. Jas. Simpson was lined 10s and costs for allowing a fire to be kindled in his yard. IMPROPERLY DISTRAINING. His Worship gave judgment in the oases of De Berg v. Deardon, and same v. White, as follows :—The principal objections taken by the learned counsel for the defendants were that there was no power to lay an information under the Act; and that if there was power, that power should be exercised by the Attorney General alone. From a very careful perusal of the Act under which these informations have been laid, and of the 16th clause of the Interpretation Act, I am of opinion that the informant has taken the course authorised by the clause mentioned in the Act, according to which any person may become informant in such cases. lam somewhat fortified in this opinion by Mr Justice Johnston, wbo lays down distinctly that “ cases which the justices hear and determine judicially, upon oath of witnesses or confession of parties, aie divided into two classes ; in the first of which, being of a penal character, the proceedings are begun by laying an information and go on to dismissal and acquittal, or conviction * * * In the second the proceed-

ings are commenced by a complaint, and result in an adjudication by order, &c.” It appears to me that the offences are decidedly of a penal character, and therefore must be laid by information. Judge Johnston also says, speaking of the Replevin Act, under which these are laid : —“A penalty, not exceeding LSO, recoverable summarily, is imposed by the 17th section,” &c, enumerating the offences, Jb appears, therefore, that it is quite clear Mr Justice Johnston is of opinion that these cases are for a penalty which should be recovered summarily, and by means of information. 1 am also of opinion that informations for any of the offences mentioned lie against the landlord or bailiff or against both, The defendant in this case has undoubtedly taken a very bigh-hauded proceeding. As was stated by plaintiff’s counsel, while the law gives landlords very large powers, and very properly so, no doubt, at the same time those powers must be exercised in a proper and legal manner. A landlord, in distraining, is bound to distrain according to law, and it is no excuse to say that he was ignorant of the law. The same remarks apply to the bailiff who, if be does not act with a proper knowledge of the law must pay the penalty. With regard to the contention that there was no proof of seizure, or that the defendant authorised seizure, I think ic will not hold, because proof of seizure is quite apparent from the fact of the goods having been taken away, admittedly by the defendant White, according to the orders of Deardon. There is also proof of Deardon coming into the plaintiff’s house, accompanied by White, and saying “1 have brought this man to distrain upon these goods and thereupon White followed out his principal’s instructions. To my mind it is clear White was acting in his capacity as bailiff, is .responsible for all he did ; and therefore cannot escape from the penalties imposed by the Act. The judgment of the Court will b.-fagainst the defendant Deardon, a penalty of 40s and costs in each case (L 6 19s fid in all); against White a penalty of 20s and costs in each case (Lo 6s in all.) I make this distinction between the bailiff and land ord, because the former was undoubtedly acting under the instructions of his principal. In answer to Mr Stout, his Worship said be thought it was clear it was intended to make chargesand jf there Imd been no such intention, tqe landlord should have made an intimation to that effect p writing.