RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3492, 2 May 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Saturday, May 2. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) Causing a Disturbance at the Immigration Barracks—Henry S. Wales, who had gone to the Immigration Barracks, Caversham, caused a disturbance there, and refused to leave when ordered to do so by the Barrack-master, was fined 20s. or in default six days’ imprisonment with bard labor. His Worship recommended Mr Duke to have a placard posted up, warning strangers not to trespass on the barrack property. Vagrancy.—Alexandria M’Ewan, alias Ferner, was charged with this offence.—Constable Rooney said that he had known the prisoner, who had previously been convicted of vagrancy, for two years. She was one of the lowest prostitutes in the town, and had no settled home.—Prisoner asked for a remand, which was granted till Monday next. Theft. —Elizabeth Connell pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing from the Union Hotel a double white blanket, of the value of 30s the property of Edward Lyons.—Sub-In-specter Mallard stated that the prisoner was a most impudent thief. During the last ten or twelve days she had gone about the town pxifermg right, and left. She had gone into the Union Hotel, taken the blanket, and pawned it. Unfortunately, in the other cases they had not been able to. recover the goods. Prisoner was sentenced to 60 days’ imprisonment with hard labor. I Drunkenness.—Mary Sweeney, an immigrant by the Asia, who stated that she was a single girl, twenty years of age, and had got a glass “ too much,” was discharged with a caution ; James Smith was fined ss, or 48 hours.—Patrick Coull was charged with being drunk at the Immigration Barracks on the previous day.—Defendant: I was drunk, 1 suppose. His Worship : What were you doing there?— Defendant: God Almighty knows, for I don’t. -His Worship: You don’t!-Defendant: And, faith, I don’t. (Laughter.) The drink got in me, and 1 suppose I got muddled. He further stated that he was a seaman discharged from the Asia.—Ris Worship said that if he got drunk he could not expect to find steady employ, ment. Defendant: I’ll take care 1 don't tumble into the clutches of your police force again, (Laughter ) —He was then fined ss, with the option of forty-eight hours’ imprisonment.—Defendant; Good heavens! I have not got the money. I’ll need to take it out. (Loud laughter.)— He was then removed from the dock.

Important Ua-;b re Roslyn Road District.—John Asher was charged by W. Y. '•piers, clerk to the Roslyn Road Board, with driving a number of horned cattle through the Roslyn Road District between the hours of 8 a.m. aud 6 p.m., contrary to the byelaw of the Board.—Mr Stout appeared for the complainants, and Mr Harris for defendant. —Mr Stout, in stating , the case, said the bye-law had been ma m for the protection of children who in going to school were in danger from cattle centinually on the

roads. Two children in the district were sen.'ualy injured by a cow since the defendant had been summoned He produced the proclamation authorising the Board to mike the byelaw, and the ‘Gazette’ n>tic< showing that the same had been assented to by the Superintendent, aud called W. Y. Spiers, who proved that ou the Bth April, between three and four p.m., some horned cattle were being driven along the Roslyn main district road by the defendant and another party.—Mr Harris said that defendant appeared not so much on his own account as representing a business position of the community. The Roslyn road leads to the cattle yards, where particular sales take pi ice, and there butchers aud others congregate for selling cattle on particular days of the month. On public grounds therefore they tre-1 the question whether the byelaw was a legal one and the Road Board legally constituted. If the bye-law were allowed, then that portion of the trade connected with that district would have necessarily to be stopped, and the sale yards remove"!. Ihe first question to decide was whether the bye-law was legally iu force, and the second, whether any notice was given to defendant of its being in force. Asher had no notice of this bye law being in force ; it only having been gazetted in February.—Mr Stout; We don’t seek fop a penalty, the Board only wish to assert their rights.—Mr Harris then stated his objections, First, the due election of the Roslyn Road Board had not been proved. Second, there was no proof that the bye-law before being sent to the Superintendent (if it had gone before him) was properly passed at a legally constituted meeting of the Board, Next, there was no proof that the bye-law was assented to by the Superintendent acting with or by the advice of his Executive Council. By section 2of the Highway Boards Act, 1871, the Superinten dent was bound to actnvith the “sole advice and consent of his Executive. ” Now, the only imimation that the bye-law had been assented to by the Superintendent was the ‘Gazette’ dated February 10, 1874, which was simply signed ‘I assent to the foregoing bye-law.—James Macandrew, Superintendent.” On the face of it, it therefore appeared to be the personal act of the Superintendent. He had subpoenaed Mr Willis and the Superintendent to prove that it was not done with the advice and consent of the Executive Council The other side should have called the Superintendent. It appeared that on previous occasions, when ib had been necessary to prove, as in this case;, by means of the Superintendent, or some other person representing the Government certain acts of the Executive, that the Superintendent had dis- objected to and allowed the production of the Executive minute book, the grounds given being that it would be unfair to state in public the Executive’s proceedings. Now it had always struck him (Mr Harris) that the Superintendent had taken more liberty than hehad aright to take. If the minutes were kept tromthvm it would act prejudicially to the interests of justice. A. ■ Willis, Clerk to the Executive, said ho did not produce the lixecubive minute-book, having been instructed by the Superintendent not to do so. By his Honor’s instructions he also declined to state what the book contained.—After some remarks by Mr Harris, his Worship said that if the Superintendent said he declined to produce the minutes of the Executive Council on the grounds of public policy, he would not take upon himself the responsibility to decide the question. Seeing then that he had merely to determine the validity of the bye-law, it was a question of public interest, and not of wilful disobedience, and he would limit the penalty to a nominal sum. Defendant would bo fined 10a and costs.