MAYOR'§ COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3075, 27 December 1872, Page 2

MAYOR'§ COURT.

Tw« Day. (Before His Worship the Mayor.) DRUNKENNESS. Matthew English was fined 20s; in default, to be imprisoned for three days. vagraacT. John Mulhau, charged with having no lawful visible means 6f support, was re(mulled till tjie 30th inst. Thbmds on. remand, charged with neglecting to contribute towards the support of li|.b two children ‘air toe industrial School to the amount of LO, was ordered to bo sent to gaol for one mouth. THEI’T. Isabella Hogg, for rooting up and carrying away live planes, of the value of ss, from the property of Samuel McCarthy was sentenced to sir. months’ imprisonment, with hard'labbr,’ owpay the damage done. Evelyn Charles Wafien, was charged on warrant with stealing two cheques, one o>r the value of L 730 and the other 1 3T’O, the property of the Sydney Bank. —J .'lines Farrell, sworn : i api a detective ojlicer j stationed at Dunedin. Fr.vm information j 1 received, contained in tlm telegram now produced, ) arrested the prisoner at half-past live yesterday evening, near the junction of the Fort Chalmers Road, on the char c of stealing two cheques, the property of the City Bank, at (Sydney. When 1 arrested b.m he gave his name as Warren. 1 at;: satisfied the prisoner is the person described iii the tolc , g i r am marked A.—On the application bt tie-police toe jnisoner was remanded for a month: " / ; do bn Wilson, charged with throwing stones and o};hejf njissjles on tp the Port Chalmers railway at Black Jack’g Point, to the danger of persons travelling theyeop, w a P flned 10s, or 24 hours imprisonment with bajrd labop, Mmon v. Knox. His Worship gave judgment as follows :—Until the passing OI Bye-law No. 10, there was not, I think, anything in the bye-laws of tlm Council that aflTectccl a stage-coach plying between Duneiboi end any terminus beyond the ‘ prescribed'spiu.e mentioned in Bye-law No. 2. Section 2, Fart 10, ißComoratcd m that law (No. 2), recogniE.es a distinction between “ hackney carriage,” ‘ f stage carriage/ and “ Borough stage carriage,” which is not destroyed by the provision “ that for all pm - posesthe term hackney cairiage" or “Borough statue carriage” (as toe case may require) shall be deemed sufficient to describe a carnage or either of the kinds hereinbefore mentioned. The provisions of sections 12, 14, 10, and various other sections of part 10 law 'No. 2, and the regulations for standings, licenses, and fares tend to prove that stage carriage ” is not included ni r of the tcims “ hackney carnage ’ _ b? carriage ” Upon consideration of tm Bye-law No. 10, and having regard to the points raised by the defendant's solicitor on

the hearing of the case, the following questions appear to arise :—• st. Had the Council power to make this bye-law so far as relates to vehicles running for hire beyond the “prescribed space” therein mentioned ana referred to? In answer to this, ! think there is no doubt that, under section 186 ot the ‘‘ Municipal«'orporations A ct, 1867, the Council had and have power to pass a byelaw regulatin'- the mana.ement and conduct of stage carriages whilst within the limits of the",! mis I mtion given to the Council bv the Act. By the expression “s'age carriage, I und- r.-tand a d mean a vehicle conveying oas engers for hire at separate fares, starting irom Puncdin and running b y-nd the ■‘prescribed space.” 2nd, if the Council had power to make the law, is it well made as creating an offence ? do this I may say it is laid down in “ Dwarris on Statutes that, if a Statute indicts a penalty for doing an act, the penalty impl-es a prolub lion, and the thing is unlawful, although there be no prohibitory words in tluT statute.” Having regard to this rule to the form adopsed in some of the Now Zealand Statutes, and particularly in jjiMiie nf the sections in part 10 to the Uth schedule to the Act of 1867, 1 think that io law, though not in direct terms, an oHence is created by the bye-law in question, 3rd. Both the preceding questions being an sw rod in the affirmative, is the present information good in form and substantiable ? la answer t > this, I think, as the information is against the driver of the coach, the word “unlawfully” is sufficient. Had the “owner” been charged, the words “wilfully and knowingly” m ; ght, and probably would have been required. Assuming this to be so, then we have to consider whether the Information discloses an offence within the meaning of the byc-law. The oflence, if any, created by bye-law No. 10, is “allowing any coach or other conveyance for the carriage of passengers, whether used only within the “prescribed space,” or for conveying passengers from Dunedin to any place outside the “prescribed space,” to remain statffinary upon any street, line, &c.. other than at lie proper coach or hackney carriage stand for such conveyance appointed, &c., in order to take up passengers, or for an v other purpose, without the special permission, &c. bow the plain moaning of tlm Janjuage appears to me to be, that the off nee can only bo committed by a coach leaving a proper stand ; and, as I have already stand, my opinion is that “stage cnach.-s,” iu which description the Tokoraairiro each is included, are not comprised in the descriptions “hackney carriage” and “ Borough ‘stage carriage, ” and, consequently, have no stand, and cannot have one in the sense the words “ proper coach, or hackney carnage stand ” are used in the bye-law. My view derives additional support from t:he absurdity, indeed, I may say impossibility, of a four-horse coach standing in a line, perhaps in the middle, of a number of cdjs and omnibusscH. All bye-laws sbou dbe reasonable, but a law working in that manner would be unreasonable, another difficulty is created by the use of the words, “or for .my other purpose.” This surely cannot mean for any other purpose whatever ; suppose, for iust nee, something broke, requiring twenty minutes to r> pair, would that be an infraction of the law ? Clearly not. By the rjusdevi (/anrrift doctrine, things of alike nature only arc comprehended by general words which follow words specially describing particular things, and I think that it is impossible to escape the conclusion that the words mean, “ any other purpose of a like nature,” that is standing or plying for hire before the commencement of the journey in any way, whether by taking up or setting down passengers or luggage. I think, also, that the words “ remain stationary ” mean something more than a temporary stoppage. I think the information fads on the grounds just indicated. 4th, Was the evidence sufficient ? The answer to tnc last question rendeers it unnecessary to go fully into ibis, but jt appears to me that the evidence was clearly insufficient. Mr Aim on was, I think, bound to prove was the proper stand, and this he could not do ; that the coach had no special permission to stop a i tlffi place in question, which he did not do. lu some cases, upon grounds of public policy, the onu of i roof is cast upon the defendant, but it is not so in this instance, I may shortly recapitulate and say, in my opinion, first, that the Council had power to make the byelaw, and that an offence was created by it : second, that the information is not in itself substantiable; and third, that, if there existed no ether objection, the evidence is insufficient. The case will therefore be dismissed, but without costs,