RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3419, 5 February 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, February 5. (Before J. Brown, Esq , and J. Black, Esq., J.P.’s.)

Drunkenness. —Michael Prendergast, not appearing, had his bail (40s) forfeited. Assault.— William Dixon was charged with striking John Murdoch on the 2nd inst. Mr Jojce for Murdoch, Mr Stout for Dixon. —The defendant and complainant are both lapidaries. On Monday last defendant caked at complainant’s place of business, and. after using some insulting words, struck him on the cheek.—Defendant admitted having struck complainant with his open hand after being called “ a liar,” whereupon Murdoch said “Now I’ve got you.”—Witnesses having been called as to character, the Bench considered that an assault had been committed, and fined defendant 20s and costs, in default 48 hours’ imprisonment. (Before H. S. Fish, Esq., J.P., and his Worship the Mayor, A. Mercer, Esq., J. P.) Highway Obstruction. —Wm. Dickson was charged by George Clark with having, on the 12bh January, without lawful authority, obstructed a public highway in the Portobello district by throwing timber across it. Mr iStout for complainant; Mr Smith for defendant.—Mr Smith applied for an adjournment for a week to allow a survey commenced two or three days ago to be continued. It would take three or four days more at the least to do this. When the case was heard before the Justices two or three days auo it was adjudicated upon, and leave granted for it to be brought on again. The usual costs which were given in such cases could not be applied for, as defendant had had notice given him of the intention to apply for an adjournment, and therefore there was no necessity for him to appear.—Mr Stout said that it was not a question of survey, as he stated when the matter was before the Court on a former occasion.—Mr Smith said that if that was admitted, defendant was willing to withdraw the applicatiou for adjournment.—Mr Stout said the adjournment was only asked for at S. 30 o’clock last night, and it was then found that there w<«uld not be enough time to inform the witnesses, who were scattered all ovei the district. The best course would be to go as far as possible with the case, and then, if Mr Smith liked, he might ask for an adjournment.—The Bench considered that the best course to pursue.—Mr Stout then stated the case, and asked the Bench, in the event of it being proved, to only inflict a nominal penalty, as all they wanted was to show defendant that he must not block up the road, and so cause great inconvenience and unnecessary expense to the settlers.— George Clark, the complainant, said that the road had been used for the last seven years. From LSOO to L7OO had been expended on it. In March, defendant wrote to the Board saying that if they did not compensate him for the road from Hooper’s Inlet to Portobello being carried through his property, he would shut it up. According to Mr Stewart’s report he showed that the obstruction was on defendant’s land. He was a member of the deputation which waited on his Honor in regard to the road. He believed the object was to get the Government to take the burden on it if the road was found to be on the wrong land, but they refused to. do so. He had reason to believe Mr Stewart’s report was incorrect.— By the Bench : Previous to the survey being made, he had not heard defendant say that the road was on bis laud. —James Seaton knew the road referred to. Had been in the district twenty-six years. At a meeting held some nine years ago, he pointed out to the settlers the line as surveyed. Subsequently be pointed out that in making the line, the men had gone off it to the left. No alteration had since been made. The road now being made was about half a width from the old one.—William Garrett said that in a conversation held with defendant some four years ago, the latter said it did not matter where the road was, as the ground on either side belonged to him.— George Geary held a conversation with defendant in August, 1872, Defendant said that there was a deviation on to his property, and that he could stop the road if he liked. Witness asked him why he did not do so, and he replied that it was immaterial to him, as he owned the land on both sides,—Alex. Clark said the | place where the obstruction was—on the old line —had beep, open for six or seven years,—Wm. Smith asked that the defendant’s case be adjourned till Thursday next, which Was agreed to. [The bailiff referred to in our report of the case of Moore v. Sandison in last night’s issue was Assistant Bailiff Barnes. This explanation is due to Bailiff Hughes. ]