RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3608, 15 September 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tuesday, September 15. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq , R.M.) Before commencing the business of the day his Worship read the following :—My attention has been drawn by the Cierk of the Court to a misreport published iu the ‘ Daily Times ’ in the case of Fish v. Gray and Drummond, which he considers to be injurious to him as an officer «-f Court. “Judgment had been given and an assessment, altnough an incorrect one, had been made by the Court Clerk. It had been fixed 10s boo high.” “ vlr .Stout said that the Clerk bavin > made a mistake, he asked that the 10s overcharged should nob be allowed.” The Clerk has obtained a note from Mr Stout to the following effect“l did not say the ('le>k had made a mistake, What I did say was to the effect that the whole witnesses had been allowed, aud that L should object to two being allowed ” Mr Anderson, solicitor for the plaiut.ff, also says that the words quoted were not used. I can also from my own knowledge say that tr;e statement complained of is an untrue report. lam well aware of the difficulties reporters have to encounter in their calling, it is impossible in toe space devoted to the proceedings in this Court iu the morning papers to give a full account of all which takes place, and condensation is absolutely necessary. This is sometimes impe. fectly done, the point of the legal argument being occasionally misapprehended, but if it be done fairly on the wiiole, no one can be justified in finding fault. But if theie be wilful misrepresentation, either from pique or prejudice, such conduct merits marked reprobation. lam informed that this is not the first instance in which the Clerk of Court has been unfairly dead wub by the same reporter, and there being no complaint against the other reporters, I think in these circumstances the legitimate iafeienceis that such misconduct is the result of personal feeling. lam very unwilling at first to exercise the power I possess to restrain such misconduct, and will content myself with warning the party complained upon against a repetriou of it, aud communicating officially with the editor of the * Times’ on the subject. In adopting this lenient course, I am moved by the youth 01 the reporter, who does not appear to be above seventeen years of age ; and I hope what has taken place will impress upon him the necessity of greater discretion in future, and be of service ro him.

Drunkenness. —Elisha Harris, charged with this offence, was let off with a caution.

Breach or the Railways Act. —Fredk. Humphreys was charged, ou the information of Andrew Davidson, railway-guard, with having, on September 10, at the Anderson’s Bay crossing of the Clutha railway, stopped the free pa sage of the railway train.— Mr j'tout appeared for the Government, and MiBarton defended., —Mr Stout said that in form.nt was a railway guard, and this being the first ease of the kind that had come before the Court, it was brought as a warning to persons trespassing on the line. He djd riot know what excuse defendant could liayj for stopping the tram. —The following evidence was given : Andrew '< avidg n, railway guard on the Clutha line, said:.that while thp § 20 p.m. train was going in the direction of Dreen [aland ou September 7, he saw some person standing on the railway crossing, and consequently they had to pull up.—Mr Barton ; md now you have pulled him up, is that so? (Laughter.)— Witness replied in the affirmative.—ff'B Wor hip : Did he want the train to go over liiraf-r-Vlr Barton : Oh, no. You could have pushed back' to Dunedin with the engine if you had likgd ; it is only a very small one. John Thomas, engine-drive):, sajy the defendant on the railway crossing oh the day in question. Witness kept the whistle going and reversed the engine, and the fireman put the break on ; but all to no purpose, defendant refusing to budge. ivl r Barton : Do you not like to judulge in the luxury of running over a child occasionally ? -Witness said he always tried to prevent .appideuts, and never rau ever a horse.—Mr Barton : But did you not run over the racing mare man. Mr satton : Didn’t it strike you when you saw a gentleman of Mr Humphrey’s intelligence stamping on the line that he wanted to stop the train a purpose ’—Witness : ;'o—Mr Barton, iu seating the case for the defence, said they were quiitly told that the offence was contrary to section (J of the Kail way Act, 186(5 This Act was passed bef ore there was aiiy railway in the Province, and was simply a sort of speculative aff ir, those engaged in triakiug it thinking that on some distant day there would be a railway and also an offence. Counsel then read the section of the Act refereed to, and argued that it did not apply to personal b.odily obstruction, but to things placed wilfully op the line. That railway authorities should #laim the right of running over a child had pot been claimed since the time of Sydney Smith- He had said a railway would never be completed till a bishop was burnt on it; and here, as they had two b. shops, it might some day be found necessary to sacrifice one of them.— (Laughter.) Mr Humphreys was proceedi ig home ou the evening in question, and as' he was walking across the fine he raw a child under the bridge. As the dr’ver could not see the child, he tried to stop the engine as as act of mercy. 'lhe case had probably he n brought to show , how badly the authorities did their busiuasa unless forced to do it properly ; there being no gates at this stage, and no one to look after the line. These defects had been pointed out by the Press, and it appeared to be a sort of retributive justice that because the Press attacked the railway, the railway officials take proceedings against one of the gentlemen from the ‘ Daily Times’ for obstructing them.—(Laughter.) In proof of his assertions he would read from the daily prints. He djd not quote from the ‘Times,* because he might quote the culprit’s writing. Mr Barton then read extracts from the ‘ Guardian’ of August 26 and September 2, both showing the necessity of gates being erected at the crossing, as children were continually on the line. He said they only wanted to got three or four editors ori the line, together with three or four loading lawyers, and ho should be most happy to defeud them.—His Worship : Do you contend that a Colonial editor is equal to two English bishops?—Mr rtartou : Two are, with one or two lawyers thrown iu as a make-shift.—Alexander M'Cutcheon, tollkeeper at Anderson’s Bay, and Dr Mackenzie Brown gave evidence to the effect that children were continually on the railway crossing, an j that when they were under the bridge it was impossible to see them while going along the lino.—His Worship said the defence was based on two grounds. With regard to the first, be considered it s

f("e obstruction oh defendant’s part in refusing to move off the line when thi whistle was sounded. In the Colonies some persons thought they could do as they liked, and some, out of bravado, thought thej could stop a train when they pleased ; though he did not intend to apply those remarks to the defendant. As children were habitually on the line, gates should be erected. He was bound to give defendant the benefit of the doubt, as he could not say it was a “larrikin” trick.—The case was dismissed.

Fraud.— Sydney George Alexander was charged on the information of David Sinclair with obtaining 12 from him by false pretences, with intent to defraud him of the same, on August 22 —The charge was an adjourned one. Det ctive Shury said that when he a pretended a-cused on the s',b instant, he said that he had been to Uamaru and purchased the Star and Garter Hotel. Witness asked if he did purchase it. and he repbed, “By ! and paid for it,”—Mr Stout, in reserving hj s defence, asked that bail be fixed as low as possible. —Prisoner was committed for trial at the next sittings of the Supr me Court, bail being allowed, himself in the sum of LSO and two sureties of L 25 each.—Prisoner was then charged, on remand, with obtaining Lls fom Alex. Cowper. on August 26, by false pretmees.— He was committed for trial on this charge, bail bein'! fixed as in the former c.is -. Oharoe of Theft. Richard. Win. Davis was charged on the information of Jam a Pat. Qu rk wih stealing a silver watch, of the ya ue of Ls.—Mr Stout defended. -The parties had been partners, and the defence was that the watch had been pawned by accused to rai j e money for their joint benefit. The pawn-ticket was found in prosecutor’s house —The accused was discharged. — Daniel Kilgour was charged with allowing two calves to trespass on the Port Chalmers line. Vlr Stout explained that a number of people were in the habit of allowing cattle to go on the line. The case was not brought so much for the purpore of having a heavy penalty inflicted as to put a stop to the prevalent habit of allowing cattle to stray on the line. They only asked that defendant be mulcted in a nominal amount. —Mr Matheaon, inspector on the line, said that the free passage of the line had often been interrupted, and the train had been stopped eight times, owing to cattle being on the line.—His Worship warned defendant that he was liable to a penalty of LSO. Here such trespass was attended with greater risk than in England, where the constructors were bound by law to fence the railway line while here they had no provisions for such being done. Defendant was fined 5s and coats.