RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3447, 10 March 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tuesday, March 10. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness. —Robert Johnson was fined or 48 hours ; Alice Hawley, who offered for taki °g a glass tho fact that |he had done ao pn- the strength of last finishing a three nioutha’ septknse pi gaol, 40 J, or 14 days j Edward 'Mui'phy, John Buckley, and Thomas Kennedy, pS, or 48 hours each. Fruit-stealing. —Alfred Stephens (7) and John Healy (8) were charged by the Rev-. E G. Edwards with stealing certain apples, of the value qf fid, from his garden. While his Worship was endeavoring to get an answer to the charge from the little boys, Mr Barton rose and said that as av'ims mrku he must protest against a criminal action being proceeded with against such little children l»[e dared to say that there was no one in Court; whose conscience was quite clear of stealing apples —Mr Edwards then said that, looking at the children’s ages, he thought the charge shouid not be pressed, and would, with his Worships permission, withdraw it.—His Worship dismissed the charge, on condition that tye boys parents should severely punish Refusal to Surrort a Child.—Beniamm Britton, master of the Industrial School brpught a complaint against Charles Lawson of refusing tp contribute to the support of his daughter, Mary A»ne Larson, gent to that Institution for a ter W pf %ee years. Mr Haggitt appeared for complainant.—Defendant, who is a tailor, said he could pay only 2s fid per week, as he only had niece, work, and was not always making‘good wages. The girl, who is nearly fifteen years of (age, is k beyond redemption, and witness

thought it very hard that he should have to support her. He had a son, who was a good boy, and was at school, and he did not wish to rob him of his education, and throw away the money on a girl who was nothing but a prostitute. The common gaol, with an occasional flogging, was good enough for her.— Robert Bennett, tailor, said defendant was iu his employmfnt, and earned on the averago L2 los per week.—Complainant said that the girl’s conduct was such as to prevent her being sent to a situation. His Worship made an order for defendant to pay a sum of os per week in support of the child. Assault. —John Sullivan was brought up on remand, charged with assaulting Constable Dunnett while in the execution of his duty. Mr Harris appeared for accused, and said the assault was committed when the latter was uudor the influence of drink. Also that accused was generally a steady, industrious man. and that witnesses to character could be brought.—His Worship, taking this into consideration, fined accused 20s, or six days. Alleged Murder. —On the name of Patrick Long, on remand, being called, his Worship said he had read over the evidence given at the inquest, and, on consideration, did not think that any further investigation on his part was necessary ; he would therefore accede to the request of the Sub-In-spector, and Long was held ‘committed for trial at the ensuing criminal sessions. Information by the Waterworks Co.— Henry Smi hj Fish jun was charged by the Dunedin Waterworks Company with putting in a syphon to the Company’s pipes at the premises of the ‘Otago Daily Times’ and ‘ Witness ’ Company, contrary to section 31 of ' the Dunedin Waterworks Act, he not being an authorised plumber. Mr Macassey appeared for complainants, Mr Barton for defendant.—Thomas Dick, secretary to the Waterworks Company, said that defendant sent iu a request on February 26 that he might be permitted to lay a syphon at the above-mentioned premises. Plaintiff was instructed to answer in the negative, as Fish was not an authorised plumber according to the Company’s Act. Defendant, however, laid the syphon, and these proceedings were instituted, the proper notices of day and hour not having been given, and the superintendence of the Company’s servants nor having been obtained. [Mr Barton subjected witness to a long and severe cross-examina-tion, trying to elicit that the complaint of the Company in this case was a persona 1 matter against Fish. With reference to notice of the time not being forwarded, witness had to produce a number of noticefrom other applicants, which bad been allowed, and in none of them was the time notified.] Daniel Campbell, manager of th-. ‘ Daily Times ’ Company, stated that he instructed defendant to lay a syphon at the premises, and it was done by one Mitchell and one or two other men.—John Davis, inspector of the Company, said he went to the cellar of the ‘ Daily Times ’ premises ou Thursday last, and saw a syphon there. It was joined to the Company’s mains and was in working order, and on the Mowing day witness was sent to disconnect it. Thi° he did, telling Mr Campbell that the syphon was laid by an unauthorised plumber. —Mr Barton proceeded to address the Court for the defence, saying it was a case which bristled with law p tints, on ore of which he was sure of transfixing the complainants. They drew up a list of thirteen plumbers, who, and no others, should be considered competent to be employed by anyone wishing to have pipes laid down £rom the Ounpaiy’s mains, and this was but another instance of its monopolising spirit. He (Mr Barton) would use his utmost endeavors to break down that monopoly, and if successful he would have been of public service and would deserve general support at the election now coining on for a member of the House of Representative*. The objections raised by the learned counsel shortly stated were that the bye-law was bad. The objection should not te by information at all, but by complaint; if by information, there should be only one offence. The information did not show the offence. It was next said that the ‘ Daily Times ’ Company were the proper persons to sue, as being the owners and occupiers of the premises, aud if not the ‘ Times’ ComP aQ y, It could not be the middleman, but one of the three plumbers employed on the work. Fish was no more responsible than the defendants in the oases which he had cited. These pipes were not within the 31st section ; they were private ones. If it wereheld that the bye-law was ajgood one, and had been violated, then one farthing, under the circumstances, should be the extent of the fine. He wanted it to be shown that the bye-law was bad and that the Company was not to dictate whom he or any other person was to employ to paint, paper, or otherwise improve or repair his house. He maintained that it was not to be pretended that if a job was taken by Fish for say L6OO, and there were pipos in it, then Fish must necessarily employ th duly authorised plumbers of the Company. [ Left fitting. ]