RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3467, 2 April 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, April 2. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.)

Drunkenness. —Peter Boyd, and James Lennau were each fined ss, with the option of 24 hours imprisonment.' Robbery from the Person.— Jane Glass was charged with stealing from the person of one Edwin Belcher, on the lab April, a parse containing LB. There was. a second charge against the same prisoner of having no lawful means of support.—His Worship : I see there are two charges against the prisoner, which do you propose taking first—Sub-Inspecter Mallard : The robbery from the person. If in that case your Worship considers a prima facie case made out, then I will withdraw the other charge,—The case was then proceeded with The first witness called was Edward Belcher.gardener, at present residing in Dunedin, who stated that ho had recently been working in the Oamaru district, for Messrs Jefford and Clues. Was paid off on Monday last, receiving as his wages a cheque forL26 on the Bank of New Zealand at Oamaru. He cashed the cheque on the same day. getting one twenty pound, one five, and a one pound notes. At the same time be drew upwards of LSO which he had lodged there. He got two twenty pound notes and the rest in small notes. He went to Dunedin, arriving on Tuesday. Had been staying at the Albion Hotel since. The money referred to was m a common leather purse with a clasp. Last night he took, one pound from the purse and replaced it with its contents “is pocket. Between nine and ten o clock last night he was sitting in the bar w the Albloh Hotel, , The puree thbtt!

m his Jpocket. Helelfc the bar of the hotel, a w ® n ** to the/footbath, he met the prisoner. She asked huh' to go home with her, but.he, declined. She then put her, arms round liia neck, and placed her hand in hia pocket (where the purse was) and took the purse out. She went into the hotel after ho had accused her of taking his money, and “shouted" for him. He went in and had a drink with her. He again accused her and informed his mate (Richard Bell) of the robbery, who gave information to the police. Had not seen the prisoner before.—Richard Bell, miner, said he knew the prisoner ; had seen her at Christchurch, and was in her company, with a woman named Holmes, on the previous evening. Prisoner left the room and went on to the street. Immediately she returned, Belcher went into the room from the bar, and said that he had lost all his money, and that prisoner had taken it from him. Prisonerdenied the accusation.—Constable Shirley proved that the prisoner was searched but no money found on her.—His Worship said that the stolen property had not been found, and if the case had depended on circumstantial evidence he would not have committed,,her. But such was not the case, there was the direct evidence of the prosecutor, who stated that the* woman pat her hands round ids neck and took the parse from his pocket. With that evidence he felt .bound to commit the prisoner for trial.—The charge of vagrancy was then withdrawn. Obtaining Monet under Fame Pretence?.—Francis Walstab was charged, on warrant, with obtaining money at Christchurch under false pretences, and on the application of the police was remanded to Christchurch,

Breach'Of, the Harbor Regulations.— H. Tomkins was charged by Depaty Har-bor-master Orkney with having, on the 20th March, refused to shift the fighter Secret from the Jetty street wharf when ordered to do so, Mr Stewart for Complainant, Mr A. Bathgate for defendant. —Mr Stewart produced the * Gazette ’ and read section 41 of the Harbor and Quarantine Regulations, by which any person committing a breach of the same was liable to a penalty not exceeding Llo.—John Orkney, Depaty Harbor-master, stated that defendant was master and owner of the lighter “Secret.” Remembered Friday last, the 27 th alt. ’ Defendant’s lighter was lying at the lower end of the Jetty street wharf. By virtue of his office, 1 he asked defendant to remove his vessel further toward the shore. It was necessary for him do so for the general accommodation of the shipping. Defendant first refused to do so, and afterwards said that ho would look ■at the berth witness wished him to shift to, and if it was clear he would do sOj bub if it was not he would not leave. ■ Ho did not move, and ordered the men to, fake off hatches and unload at the place .be occupied. They did so and finished dischargmg there. 'Ho could easily have gone to the place witness wanted him.—By Mr gate: Defendant said he had moved some cargo from the place where he" was. Witness had been subjected to very much insolahoo at defendant’s hands. Yon are the gentleman of “ Bumble ” celebrity, -are you not t Witness s I don’t know.—(Laughter)— Were you plaintiff in Orkney v.Bell!—Mr Stewkrt objected to the question, but his Worship held that if it showed animus in the matter the question was a fair one.—Witness con-

turned; Made allusion to defendant in tbat case about writing to the Star and putting witness , By his Worship: He wanted to shift the Secret to benefit the whole shipping. The Secret was removed to make room for the Jane only.—His Worship: Now was there any other vessel to be accommodated except the Jane Witness ; None that 1 know of, —His Worship ; Why was the one vessel (the Secret) to be removed to make room for another vessel (the Jane) ?—I do not know any reason. 1 wish it to be known that'l acted impartially in the matter. —His Worship : That is for me to judge. Has the Jane any right to preference over the Secret? —Witness: None whatever. I may state that in aU ports steamers get preference to lighters.—WUiam Caldwell, landing-waiter, heard plaintiff ask defendant to remove the Secret from the Jetty street wharf, which he distinctly refused to do, alleging that he had removed 100 tons of cargo to clear the way. and was two or three hours doing so. Witness looked round and saw that only a couple of casks had been, removed. Defendant’s tone and manner was rather disagreeable. He was a little saucy, and is not /popular. To Mr Bathgate ; Though defendant :wkS disagreeable he did not call OrknOv a ‘‘ Bumble.-’ ’ Henry Guthrie, agent for. the Secret, remembered seeing defendant’s vessel alongside ■ the wharf on Friday last. He discharged his cargo at the place where he first berthed, Mr Bathgate raised three objections. In the first place, he questioned the Governor’s powers in the face of the Marine Act to sanction the framing of a bye-law as to delegate to the IJeputy Master snob powers as those which he bad received. Next, the 53rd section said that the time allowed for discharging a vessel under 100 tons was two days, and so on. according to the tonnage, as to the time allowed, and therefore neither the Deputy Harbor Master, nor even the Governor himself, canid force defendant, to leave before the expiry of the two days. The last objection was that by the 65th section, priority was given to vessels discharging in occupying the berth, but in this case Ork. ney had wanted defendant, who was discharging, to leave, so as to Ist the other vessel occupy the berth, and there take in r §?j~‘ Uiß Worshi P remarked that section 41 did not give power to the Harbor-Maste* to order vessels about, unless for the good of the general public or the whole of the shipping. In the witness-box he swore he gave orders for the removal of the lighter strictly for the accommodation and benetitof the whole shipping, but in cross-examination he merely swd that it was for the accommodation of the lighter Jane, to take in cargo. It was clearly not intended by section 61, to turn out any single vessel to let another berth in its place, merely to take in cargo. The 65th section was, that the vessels to take in cargo vZ?i d & et "noccnpied berths, but when a vessel was discharging, it was clearly notan Unoccupied berth. If the Act was iouna to be an inconvenience to the public matter to sub- . c . ouaou get it altered. He could not give a decision on the ovidence before hum—Mr Stewart: Then wo withdraw the case—Mr Bathgate 'applied for costs. It was an easy thing to withdraw the case when it was found that the decision agam . Bfc JPtoatiff—His 'Worahip thought it required a very strong case iti costs ieuld be granted against a'pfiblio officer.—Costs disallowed, 1