RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3568, 30 July 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, July 30. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.)

Drunkenness Michael Collin, Polly Ljrens, and Mary Donovan, charged with this offence, were let off with a caution. Susannah O’Brien was lined 40s, with the option of fourteen days’ imprisonment. A further charge of habitual drunkenness, preferred against the last-n-imed prisoner, was dismissed, there not being three previous convictions.

STABBING WITH a Knife.— Wm. Henry Box well whs charged on remand with maliciously wounding ene Joseph Ashley with a knife on the 28th inst.—Joseph Ashley said that he remembered Tuesday night last. Between ten and eleven o’clock on that night he was induced by a female to enter prisoners house. After he was in tho house for some time, prisoner got up and struck him, and he struck prisoner in return. Both then sat down and remained quiet. After this prisoner ordered him out, and as he was going out, retreating back’wards, prisoner struck him with a knife, the blow taking effect on bis face. The wound not a severe one. He conveyed information to the police, and was subsequently taken to the Hospital.— By the Bench: Neither he nor the prisoner was sober.—Dr Yates deposed to dressing two slight wounds on prisoner’s fade. The might possibly have been caused by a knife. —His Wors ip questioned very much if the case was of so s 1 rious a character as to warrant him in committing prisoner for trial to the Supreme Court. Perhaps it might be as well to deal summarily with the matter. It appeared to ba more a drunken squabble than anything else. The case would be adjourned till next day.

Breach or the Toll-bar Regulations. —William Murray was charged by Dr Borrows with refusing to give him a tollticket after he had paid the toll, defendant being the person so appointed, Mr Stewart for complainant, Mr Stout for defendant.— Complainant said that defendant kept the toll bar at the Water of Leith. On the 13th msfc. witness, in passing through, asked him for a ticket entitling him to pass free through aT City tolls or those within a radius of seven miles of the City, as he had been getting them for the last five years. He paid defendant the toll, and the latter offered him a pass for one free toll-gate, refusing to him a ticket entitling him to pass fr e through all toll-bars within seven miles. He further told defendant that be had been get ting ticke s every day from Hillside to Waikari —-Defendant said that it was his name on the house.—Mr Stewart then ad dress d the Bench as to the wording of the Ordinance. He submitted that the question involved was whether payment at one side toll-gate entitled the holder of the ticket to pass free through any other toll-gat) within seven miles—in other words, to pass free through all our City toll-gates.— Mr Stout argued the legal points at length. He contended that there were three constructions on section 8, or, rather, three ways in which it must be construed. The first meaning which he would draw the Beach’s attention to was the meaning of the words “for returning once free through tho same toll-gate or passing free or returning once through any other tollgate.” The word “or” being used instead of “nor” made it disjunctive, giving the alternative of either passing through and returning by the same toll-bar, or passing through one toll-gate and again through another within a radius of seven miles, after which the exemption ceased D-fendant was further charged with misconduct in refusing to deliver up to Dr. Burrows a toll-ticket issued from Waikari, and showing that he was exempt from payment of toll at the other City toll-gates.—Com-plainant’s evidence was "to the effect that when passing through the Leith Toll-bar, on July 15, be presented the ticket referred to, which deftn cant snapped up. ani refused to return. —Mr iStout’a argument was that defendant was entitled to do so, as, after passing through Waikari and the Lieth Toll-bars, the-exemptien ceased. -Judgment reserved