RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3575, 7 August 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, August 6. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.)

Drunkenness.— John Young and John Carneil were discharged with a caution. Obscene Language. Anne Reid and Henry Boxwell were charged with using profane language within the hearing ot persons passing in St. Andrew street.—The man was fined 20s, or six days’ imprisonment ; the soman 10s, or three days.—Boxwell did not apparently half relish the idea of being removed in eu.'.tody, and made a determined rush for the door, but his progress was immediately stopped. He then imploringly beseeched one or two persons in court to pay his fine, but was not successful. —Zech. Patterson, charged with using ob.-cene language within the hearing of persona passing in Princes street, was fined 20s or six days’ imprisonment.

A Laundress in Trouble.—Susannah Phillips was charged with carrying, on the Ist instant, a large clothes-basket m Princes street projecting so pinch as to become a public obstruction.—Defendant appeared in court armed with the “veritable” basket, in which she placed the summons and pleaded ignorance. She said that she was carrying home a dozen aad eight pieces in the basket on her head about 5.20 p.m. She bad been in the habit of carrying a basket from Stafford to Stuart street along the same route for the last fourteen years, and she had always carried clothes both clean and dirty.-Sergeant Anderson deposed that a number of persons were passing along the street at the time. Instead of removing into the street as requested, defendant gave him a lot of abuse.—Sub-In-spector Mallard explained that although the case might seem a trivial one, still very recently—only three or four days ago—some ladies-had to leave the asphalte path and walk on the mettaled road, owing to a person carrying a table along Princes street. Of course the polic° did not always expect to be treated with civility, but sometimes, as in the case of this woman, they received abuse. Of coarse the Bench must be aware that there was a great deal of traffic in Princes street on a Saturday night. The case was not brought with vindictive feelings towards defendant or anyone else.—His Worship was not going to fine defendant this uitn6 f because it was not a very bad case of obstruction; and in a case of its kind the obstruction must always be clearly proved. If an officer of the police speaks to any person he must always be treated with civility. Case dismissed.

Unregistered Dog. —Joseph Lazarus, for keeping an unregistered dog, was fined 40s and costs.

Fraud.— Elisha Harris was charged with obtaining one coat from Robert Michael Marks, by falsely representing that he was sent for it by Benjamin Farra.—Mr Bathgate, who defended, asked that the case be adjourned till next day, as he had only been recently instructed, and had not time to prepare his defence, Adjourned accordingly.

Friday, August 7. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.)

i a Drto kenne ss.—A nne Mowbray was fined 10s, in default three days’ imprisonment. Fraud.—Eliblia Harris was charged, on remand, by Benj. Parra with obtaining one coat, of the value of 255, from Robert M. Marks, by falsely representing that he was sent for it by Mr Parra.—Mr Bathgate de- • en ™~ Proßecutor and accused had been in Messrs Isaac and Marks’s shop, and while there Parra bought a coat, sayingthathewould call for it again. Accused afterwards called and obtained possession of the coat, saying that he Was sent for it by Parra. He then pawned it for Bs—Samuel Buckley, a witness called for the defeuce, said that he was dunking with prosecutor (Parra) and accused on the day in question. Prosecutor told accused to get the eoat and pawn it, so as to get more drink.—Accused was [discharged the case not being sustained. 6 1 Neglected Children,— Louisa Miller (71 Thomas Miller (5), and Wm. Miller(3), were charged with wandering in the streets and having no home-Mrs Miller deposed that her husband, who was a seafaring man, had destitute about a month ago , ® bad been driven out of her home, And had nothing to eat on the previous day. She wif 0 * * here her husband was; neither did she know his religion, as she never knew him to go to Church except when he went to christen the children.— (Laughter.) His Worship said that a good look-out for the fatheV must bo made by tho

police. It was a scandal that the pnblio shou d be made to maint -in a family of this kind in the Industrial School - -The children were all committed to the Industrial School for seven years each, and ordered to be brought up in the Presbyterian persuasion. Breach op thb Turnpike Ordinance. -—ln the of Barrows v. Murray, heard last we *k, the Court gave judgment as fol* lows :

By the Bth section of the Turnpikes Ordinance, 1866, it is provided that “ when any toll shall have been once taken no toll shall be taken for returning once through the same toll* gate, or for passing once or returning once through any other toll-gate within the distance of seven miles.” The plain intention of the legislature is that a traveller shall only be taxed in toll duty once every seven railea. If, therefore, there be any gate or bar within seven miles of the first one passed at which toll has been paid, no toll duty can be demanded at the second, and, so far as the traveller is concerned who has already paid at the first, the second, as well as any other within the distance specified, may be passed free as if they did not exist. It has neon argued that the exemption can only be pleaded once; that a traveller paya hrst Kate and passing free through a second exhausts his privilege, and is bound on returning to pay a second time. In support of this view it is contended that the f. rue „?? a £ n *. of disjunctive conjunction or limits the pnvilegr to any one event subsequent to the first payment of toll I am of opimoK that such an interpretation would defeat the intention of the Legislature, and operate most unjustly on those persons who may have to go through two toll-bars situated in dose vicinity, such as Hillside and Anderson’s Bay road. The fair and reasonable interpretation of section Bis against such an injustice. I do not think that the specification of events contained in the section is to be read as if the different events were to be merely alternative. The fair interpretation is that whenever one of these events takes place, whether another of them has already preceded it or not, no toll is eligible. In general only one of the events specified will happen; but in all those cases where two or more occur, then, to carry out the intention of the legislature the word “or ” may be read as and, and used conjunctively. This principle of interpretation has been repeatedly reoogmsed—fDwarns, p.p. 679, 682, 689.) If there had been any doubt, as I do not think there is. it would be removed by the application of the yule concisely stated by Lord Tenterden : “It is a general rule that a tax shall not be considered to be imposed without a plain declara/K , ia s en t °f the legislature to impose 1 v ’ Kr , own > referred to Dwarris, in other words, the inclination of the - * alwa y® k® against that construction a a i°i x mP ose< a burthen.—(Per Lord Brougham, Stockton and Darlington R. Company v. Bar-w-n’ H a ? d 607 J E? r Pa rk B. Ryder v. Mdls, 3 Exchg. 869, and Wrought and Turtle, The clear intention of the legislature, as gathered from sections 8 and 15, is to relieve from a burthen, and the interpretation now put upon these sections is that which has been adopted since the passing of the Ordinance in 1866. By section 15, tickets must be provided, specifying the names of the several toll-gates freed by payment at any bar. The tickets provided at the Water of Leith bar shonid specify the several gates within seven miles freed by payment there. This would include the gates and checks round the City four or five in number. On the day mentioned in the information, the defendant, who was acting as collector at the Water of Leith bar, offered the informant a ticket containing the name of only one bar, and refused to deliver a ticket specifying aU the bars freed by payment there, as the informant had previously been accustomed to receive. The defendant has thus been guilty of contravention of the 19th section or the said _Ord nance, and incurred a penalty not exceeding five pounds. As the question has been raised chiefly to obtain a decision on the point of iaw involved a nominal penalty will satisfy the ends of justiee. The defendant is accordingly fined in 5s and costs.

There was a second case between the same parties, judgment being delivered as under:—

A! 1 ® pendant, who wag act i ng 00 u ecfcor at; the Water of Leith Gate on the day menturned, when the informant produced a ticket received at the Wakari bar. entitling him to pass the Water of Leith and other gates free, snatched it out of his hand and refused to deliver it up. lam of opinion that in so doing he was guilty of- misconduct in his office in contravention of the 19th section of “ The Turnpikes Ordinance, 1866.” As the defendant appears to have acted under a mistaken sense of his duty, a nominal fine will suffice in this instance. The defendant is fined five shillings and costs. B

® ,s^ that the judgments be tilled for the Supreme Court, as he intended to proceed on them.—His Worship said that it would be as well that the point hq settled xn the higher Court.

CIVIL cases. Dr Borrows v. Smith.—Mr Stewart asked when the Court would be prepared to give judgment m this case, and his Worship plied probably on Monday.—Mr Stout had an application to make. He was informed that a person named Pearson, who gave evidcnce for plaintiff, was not present at the collision. He asked two parties (Mr Millieharap and another), who were present, how the accident occurred, and on being informed Borrows to sue Smith. —Mr Stewart asked that, seeing the extraordinary and serious nature of the applieation all costs should be paid.—Mr Stout demurring, his Worship fixed Monday as the day for taking the evidence proposed to be adduced by Mr Stout. Were the grounds as stated proved groundless, defendant would ha lj pa y the costs of the application. Edmond v. M‘Donald, and M‘Donald v. Edmona —Action and cross-action fortreapass at Maungatua, and the wrongful diversion of a water stream. These cases Wore heard some time ago, and the Cburt n6w gave judgment for L 5 9s 8d in the first case, and for 1 4 10s in the other. ■ Stonebridgh v. Bartlett.—Claim of LI I Is money due on promissory notes, and for cash lent.—Mr Stout appeared for plaintiff, for whom judgment was given by default with costs.