RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3577, 10 August 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Saturday, August 8. (Before E. ff. Ward, Esq., J.P., and A, Mercer, Esq., J.P.)

Drunkenness John Law, John Parker John Kerr, and Edmond Ravenhall were each fined ss, with the option of twenty-four hours’ imprisonment; Jane Kelysham 40s or seven days. The last-named prisoner was lurther sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for being an habitual drunkard.

(Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASE. Ritchie v. Young and Others.—This case was continued, Mr Stout appearing for plaintiff, Mr Smith for defendants.—Mr Smith addressed the Court on behalf of the defence tor nearly an hour. After reviewing the facts, he asked if it was probable that when the plaintiff was surrounded by a great many passenge s, a number of whom were his friends, it he were assaulted as described tuey would not assist him. A complaint was made to the captain a day or two before the alleged disturbance by Ritchie that he had not received the proper allowance of water, viz , three quarts, and that he had only received seven gills. He asked if it was likely that such a complaint as that would have raised such a brutal feeling of resentment as plaintiff wished it to be be-

heved by bringing this charge. The Bench would rt quire to have most undoubted testimony to establish such a gross charge. Was it likely that so simple a complaint would have occasioned such grosly brutal conduct ? Such complaints, whether ill or well founded, were frequently made to captains, and such complaints were not even calculated to ruffle the temper of the most irritable di-position, wo man, unless a fiend in human shape, would act as stated. Ritchie admits that the captain, after hearing the complaint, said in singularly strong language that he would take good care to see that ho had the proper allowance of water. He thus, according to plaintiff himself, implied a desire to treat him with fairness. This admission on the part of Kitchie strengthens the gross improbability that, after thus dealing with the complaint, the captain should have used that resentment which had so long been slumbering in his mind, ihe only evidence that the captain was present when the disturbance occurred to prove his learned friend’s statement that the captain took part in S® alleged brutal assault was that of Kitchie, himself, James Murdoch, and DeveThere was also evidence from which his Worship was invited to draw the conclusion that the captain was there. He was instructed that Kaue, the witness Murdoch and DeVely had committed gross perjury* inasmuch as they were in their berths * hen tho disturbance commenced, and that they never left their cabins till Kitchie returned If he could satisfy the Bench on that point he submitted that the whole case must fall to the ground. He would now shortly recapitulate the defence for the captain On the night of the 15th April-the night on which the disturbance occurred—as the captain was seated in his cabin, a passenger named Cohen made a complaint to him that he had been struck by Kitchie with his clenched hst, and almost immediately after that the doctor came in and complain, d that Kitchie had grossly insulted him by telling him that the third mate was a dog, aud that he was as ba< *- The captain, wishing an explanation of Ins conduct, sent the third mate forward to request the attendance of Ritchie m the cabin. After a lapse of a short time the assistant steward went to the cabin and informed the captain that there was a row on deck. The captain immediately left the cabin with a view of inquiring into the disturbance. On asking what had taken place, and being told Ritchie complained that the officers had committed an assault on him, the captain endeavored to allay the disturbance, saying that he would not allow anyone to be ill-treated ou board the vessel, and so long as he was captain he would have the fullest assistance in his power. Doubting the trubfuluess of Devely’s evidence, he put the question pointedly as to whether he had since the occurience held conversation with Ritchie, and was answered in the negative. He was ashamed to own that he had, and he (Mr Smith) had no doubt that Devely had told a tissue of falsehoods. The defence, oa behalf of the captain, was that he was not present at the disturbance—in fact he intended to establish an alibi.—Mr Smith then stated the defeuce he proposal! to offer ou behalf of the officers. While Ritchie and the third mate were on their way co the captain the former used insulting expressions. Burns, the officer on the poop boding them engaged iv a scuffle, said something to Kitchie, who put himself in a fighting attitude. Ritchie making away, Burns followed him with a view of bringing him before the (Japtain, whose jurat enabled him even to put a man in irons.—Hia Worship remarked that he could only do so on his own responsibility.— Mr Smith: lam quite aware of that.—His Worship did not wkh the doctrine to go forth that caotains could do as they liked.— wr Smith strongly declaimed the idea of doing anything savoring of tyranny. If he thought there was the slightest degree of truth in the change he would throw up the captain’s brief which he held in.bis hand, so great was his objection to tyranny on board vessels.—Evidence was then given for the defence, the captain directly denying the plaintiff's evidence.

His Worship summed up at great length, deciding that the whole of the evidence for the defence, in attempting to prove that Murdoch aud Devely were giving false testimony, was not of sueh a kind as to shake the evidence for the plaintiff, strengthened as it was by the conduct of the captain himself. Taking the whole evidence for the defence, as weighed against the evidence for the plaintiff, he felt, with great reluctance, imperatively obliged to come to the conclusion that an assault had beou proved against the defendants. While bound to find that the plaintiff had established hia case, his Worship said he must take official cognisance of it as it stood, and see that a full and fair report of the matter on both sides was laid before the Minister of Immigration, for the ease had not only a private bearing, but was also of considerable public importance. Judgment would be for plaintiff, for Lsl) with costa. ’

Monday, August 10. (Before J, Bathgate, Esq., K.M.)

Drunkenness. —James Hennessy, Charlotte Frederick, James Dux, Charles Fairweather, and David Scott were discharged with a caution; David Griffith was fined ss, with the option of forty-eight hours’ imprisonment.

Stealing Baoon.— Thomas White, against whom there were thirteen previous convictions for various offences, including live for larceny, was charged with stealing one side bacon, of the value of 15s, from the premises of John Healey, Mause street. Prisoner said he gave 9s for it to a person in the Provincial Sale Yards. If the ease were adjourned he did not think he would be able to find the man whom he got it from 1 he charge was clearly proved, and prisoner was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labor. ’

Breach of the Peace.— James Moore, for behaving himself in a riotous manner calculated to provoke a breach of the peace was fined ss, or forty-eight hours’ ; and for assaulting Constable Gilbert while in the execution of his duty r , 40s, or fourteen days’, CIVIL CASE. Dr Borrows v. Smith.—Tu this case, a claim for LIOO for damages sustained through a collision between defendant’s coach and plaintiffs carriage on July 21, and heard last week, Mr Stout now mentioned that he had obtained leave to call a witness who would prove that Pearce, one of the main witnesses lor the defence was not present at the accident, and that he called on a person living near the place afterwards, and asked what the whole matter was about. This was the only evidence he intended to offer.— Wm. Millichamp said he kept a shop opposite the oddfellows’ Hall, George street. On the day of the accident one Pearce went to his door about ten or fifteen minutes afterwards, and asked what was the matter, how the accident occurred, had the doctor been at witness’s shop, and was he then inside. Witness pointed out to him, the doctor] who was standing on the kerb stone. Mr Stewart said that, of course, it was impossible to explain what the motive of Mr iVlillichamp was in giving evidence of this kind. He was assured by several huhly respectable persons that the statement by him was inconsistent with the facts. Though Pearce did not see the collision, he saw the surrounding circumstances. —James Pearce said that he was standing close to the Oddfellows’ Hall, when the accident occurred.

The oaly question he asked of MilHchamp was—ls the doctor here ?’’—Dr Borrows also gave evidence. Mr Stewart wishing to question him as to a conversation held between him and Pearce, Mr Stent objected, as the evidence was inadmissible. —His Worship decided to allow the question,— Mr Stout (surprised): Does your Worship really rule that a question as to a conversation between the doctor and Pearce is admissible?— His Worship thought that under the circumstances the question should be put. Mr Stout: Will your Worship admit such evidence ?—His Worship would admit it as it regarded Pearce’s credibility alone.— Mr Stout argued that such evidence was totally inadmissible in any case. The learned counsel knew that it was not proper evidence. Mr Stewart said that the question was put with a view of es'.ablis'iing Pearce’s credibility in this Court.— Ilia Worshipsud that under the peculiar circumstances of the cases it being a cont' st betweeu Pearce and Miliichamp—he thought it a fair question and one that might be put. He wanted the truth, so that he might take all the circumstances into consideration.—Mr Stout said that the ruling was contrary to English law. He asked his Worship t® take a note of hj s objection, so that the ruling might be taken as a precedent in other cases. —Mr Stewart thought that it was a precedent that would not be followed by other barristers than his learned friend —Mr Stout was addressing his Worship, and not Mr Stewart. (Laughter.) Other evidence having been given, his Worship reserved his decision.