RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3527, 12 June 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, June 12. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness, —Henry Brown, for this offence, was fined ss, with the option of forty-eight hours’ imprisonment. T. E. Cowell v. Captain Loftus —ln this ca*ie the defendant, who is roaster of the ship Trevelyan, appeared in answer to a charge made by the mate of the same, that he did. on thi! 9 hj day of June, 1874, at Port Chalmers, then being master of the said ship, unlawfully and wilfully make and insert a false and fraudulent entry in the official log of the said ship. The entry alleged to have been fraudulently made was stated in the plaint to be as follows “This is to certify that Thomas E. Cowell, first mate, has been from the ship since the time he promised to be on board, at 4 p.m. afternoon, 6th June, but up to the present time he has not come. He came from Port Chalmers last night by the 4 p.m. train, and was «een near the oas<ombouse. There is a warrant ont for his apprehension, and a reward of LlO ; such being the case, I consider him a de«ert»r, and so have entered him at the shipping. Wm. Loftus, master ” —Mr Barton said that he understood that Mr Haggitt. who appeared for Loftus, wished a remind If that were applied for he should offer no objection.—M r fT pointed out that he was instructed by the Captain to appear fer him, but seeing that the charge was an indictable offence, and he was Crown. Prosecutor, he could not defend in that Court, and in the event of a committal, prosecute his own client in the Supreme Court.—Mr Barton said that if defendant were committed for trial,- he should object to Mr Haggitt prosecuting j he therefore did not think his friend would find himself in any false position hereafter.—Mr Haggitt said he never had defended a case of an indictable offence. The papers having been left at his office, ha tried to get some one to appear for the defendant, but was un do so, all the lawyers being eiigag d, Mr Barton complained that defendant had laid an information against defendant, and a warrant had been issued for nis arrest as a deserter. A similar complaint had previously been made, and heard at Port Chalmers, when the Magistrates determined thathe was not a deserter. Under three circumstances he would ask the Bench to withdraw the warrant, or at all events to give orders that it should not be executed till this case was over. The mate had attended at the Customs yesterday continually during the day, ready to answer any charge laid there, but the captain did not put in an ap. pearance. It would be a monstrous thing for au order for the arrest of the mate to be made and him put into gaol, as he (counsel) would be unable to obtain a writ of habeas corpus, the Judge being absent.—His Worahip suggested that, as there was a cross action, the prosecutor should withdraw the information for the indictable offence and lay an information to be disposed of ’summarily ; but Mr Barton declined to do so aa * h ® offe “ ce was an aggravated one! His Worship said that under section 18 subsection 2, a summary i..form .tion, for which a fine of LIOO might be inflicted, could be laid. Were they to go on with the in dictable offence it might be attended with very serious results to the vessel. He thought it would meet the ends of justice not to press the proceedings for an in dictable offence, when the matter could be tr.ed summarily and j .stice be done to both sides. -Mr Harton : When the evidence is given then we will bs in a position to eay whether we are willing to allow j. to be a summary case or not.—His Worship thought it would be better to settle the point at once. Were the case disposed of summarily, would Mr Haggitt have any objection to appear ? — Mr Haggitt: Of coarse

not. Baid.lt -chuld- liSAeternixn ed any oommilAaliv vrhether it should oe'a'misdemeanor and the-Sfiltße sent to trial, or whether ‘this, GoUrt should dispose of it, if both parties wore filing.— His Worship thought it #ould put Mr Bartons client in a better 1 , position were he to abandon the misdemeanor, as it would show he had no vindictive feellugs.—Mr Barton denying that his client had any such feelings, Mr Haggitt said it looked very much like it, since he bad caused two cases to be taken to the Supreme Court to be laid against the Captain,—Mr Barton s If the statement in the ship’s log goes to England without being contradicted, and be not erased from the log, the mate would lose his certificate as a master mariner, and he would be ruined.—His Worship asked if he were to stop the warrant being isitied till after the case against the. captain was over would that do ’—Mr Barton said he had to apply on a separate application, that , the warrant be withdrawn altogether, and he did not know whether the application would be ersisted. He made that application because , the captain of the vessel hai complained that the mate had deserted, and.when the case was heard before Drs O’Donoghue and Drysdale, at Port Chalmers, and full evidence gone into they decided to dismiss the case, and dismissed it accordingly. Immediately thereafter the Captain appeared to have gone to the ship made an entry, came up to this Court, where nothing was known about tha matter, got a warrant issued, Sand offered LlO for the mate:s arrest. What he complained of whs, that he had not gone back to Port Chalmers. No magistrate, either in this or any other court, would have allowed the warrant to be used, in the manner stated, had he been aware of the facts. It would be putting the Cenrt in such a position that it hadno respect for the decision of any otheri-ourt; and any person neiug defeated might go through the Colony frum court to court. After further argument his Worship asked if the warrant against the mate were withdrawn 1 would the information against the captain also be withdrawn, and Mr Barton replied certainly not. Thomas E. Cowell was then charged by Captain William Loftus with deserting from ih« ship, Trevelyan, on June 6.—Mr Barton asked that the log-book now in the Customs should not be handed over to the captain if he applied for it. --His Worship said ho Aid not think either side mould do anything to defeat justire.— His Defendant in this case having appeared, the warrant drops. It cannot be put in execution now. Mr Mallard, do you understand that? Sub-Inspector Mallard: Then so far ofe the police are concerned we have nothing, whatever to do with defendant.—His Worship ; Nothing whatever;— Both oases were adjourned till to-morrow, Mr Haggitt intimating that he would not appear. ; CIVIL CASES. ' Guthrie v. Mee Woh. —Claim, L 7 Ils 3d, or lighterage.—Judgment {by concent} for the amount—There was a. Cross action, in which L 3 16s was claimed for thh 1 loss of a half-chest of tea. • - After heariug. evid.ence, plaintiff was nonsuited. '