MAYOR'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2857, 16 April 1872, Page 2

MAYOR'S COURT.

Tjiis Day. (Before his Worship the Mayor and W. H. Reynolds, Esq.. J,P.) THE BOTANICAL GARDEN CASE. His Worship gave judgment in the case of Greur v. Craft, for removing a fence in the Botanical Gardens, as follows : “ The evidence in this case, of the dedication of the road by the crown as a public thoroughfare, appears to me to be conclusive, and I am clearly of opinion that the right of the public to use it can only be barred by legislative enactment. The Government as such, has, in my opinion, no right whatever to close public roads except when specially empowered by statue as in Roads Diversion Ordinances, and therefore the defendant was jus dried in removing the fence. Where it is absodilely necessary to close a read for the purpose of repair, (. think the General Road Board impliedly possesses half-power, as incidental to the general power, to manage and control public roads of the Province under the Ordinance of 1805, and that, I think, qualities the common law right to abate obs-. ructions, i that when the Road Board has closed a road for the buna Jidt and necessary purpo eol effecting repairs, which would not otherwise be affected without danger to life or limb, no one has a right to remove the obstruction. Subject, however, to that qualification, I am of opinion that the right to remove obstructions still remains, and, as in this case, it is evident the road was not closed for this purpose, but with the intention of closing it permanently, the defendant was justified in removing so much of the fence as would enable him to exercise his right of free passage, and that it was optional with him to resort to that course, or to proceed by indictment for the public nuisance, or by action to recover damages for the private injury sustained. On the principle f.alux populi su prana kx, I am inclined to the opinion that if the road was dangei ous the Government would be so far justified in closing it (for a reasonable time) as that the plea of public safety would be a good defence to an indictment or action at law ; but to my mind it would not debar the public from their right to abate the obstruction by removing it. Whilst, however, giving judgment in this case for the defendant, I may perhaps be permitted to express a hope thst having gained his point, ho will refrain from any further act, which will have for its effect the destruction of that portion of the the Botanical Gardens, but rather endeavor to compromise the matter in some way with the Government. A ROSAIRO CASE. William Hoare was charged with being disguised for the purpose of committing a felony. Prisoner was attired m a coat and cap belonging to one of the marines of the Rosario. Edward Lyons, hotel-keeper, Stafford street, said prisoner was in the billiard room of his hotel last night, and, after ordering four drinks, went into the concert hall. Witness asked prisoner for the money, when be replied he must give credit. Afterwards he said ho would go out and return with LSO in his pocket. He subsequently paid the 2s. Detective Farrell said he arrested prisoner last night at the {bar of the Union Hotel dressed in soldiers clothes. If any robberies had been committed in which any supposed marine was concerned they would have looked for a marine, and his expression that he would provide himself with money led them to suspect his motive iu disguising himself. Prisoner had been previously convicted. Prisoner said he did not have the coat on ten minutes before Detective Farrell arrested him. He only put the clothes on to see what sort of a soldier be would make, and it was altogether a freak. The marine had promised to be at the Court that morning. Commissioner Mallard said if the marine had gone on bo rd without his clothes be was liable to punishment. Subsequently the marine, Samuel Bowing, with prisoners clothes on, made his appearance iu Court, and, in evidence, said there were “ lots on us altogether, having a 1 »rk, and prisoner only had the clothes on fur a minute or two when the policeman nabbed hold of him.” His Worship said he was of opinion there was no felonious intent on the part of the prisoner, and had lie not been previously convicted there would not have been any suspicion against him. He would dismiss him with a caution. CHARGE OK THREATENING WITH INTENT. James O’Grady was summoned by hia wife, Margaret O’Grady, with using threatening language towards her, and otherwise so conducting himself that she stood in danger of her life, and calling upon him to find sureties for his good behaviour in future. Margaret O’Grady, wife of the defendant, said her husband came to her house yesterday, beating the door open, and on entering knocked her down, and threatened to choke her and murder her. He said he had a revolver. She had not been living with her husband for six years, and had supported her two children without asking for a single

sixpence from her husband. She had a protection order with her. Defendant, on being asked if he had anything to say, said he had given Ms wife all the money he was worth when he lately came into town. He found her in the house with a bottle of brandy by her side, writing love letters to other people. He had never struck her in his life, and he only struggled with her for the possession of the letter. He sent L‘2s home to get her out from Ireland, and he nevtr had got any good from her since. Peter Treston gave evidence that he had known defendant and his wife for a short time, and did his best to bring about a reconciliation, and had lately invited them both to dinner at his house, and suggested a clergyman being sent for to settle their differences. At dinner they said they would be happy ever afterwards, and did not want a clei’gymau. Mrs O’Grady had been a housekeeper, and he had let her have a little place at less than it was worth, because he thought she was a deserving woman. Aft r hearing the evidence of Sergeant O’Keefe, His Worship said if defendant would restore plaintiff her goods, and promise to conduct himself peaceably, he would dismiss the case. If he came before the Court again, he would have to find sureties. OFFENCES AGAiNST BYELAWS. John Wright was summoned by Inspector Nimou for using a cart to sell wood without a license.—lnspector Niraon said defendant came to his house and asked him if he would purchase a load of wood, and he put the question whether he bad a license, and found he had not.—His Worship discharged defendant with a caution, and advised him not to apply ot the inspector’s house without a license in future. WASTING WATER. Henry Scott was summoned for permitting water to run to waste supplied to him by the company. —Defendant said there was but a small leakage, and only receiving the notice on Friday, and Saturday being a wet day and a half-holiday, he could not get a plumber at once. The case was dismissed with a caution. WEIGHING COAL. Matthew Morrison was fined Is and costs for delivering coal in Dunedin without causing the same to he weighed on a weighbridge within the City of Dunedin.