RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3664, 19 November 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, November 19. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) D hi * orsbi P taki Pg hi a seat on the Bench, Mr Bathgate, counsel for the defence m the case of Finn v. M Ilroy, which was heard on the previous day, said that there was one matter in connection with that case which he wished to bring under the notice of the Court. He had been instructed bv the witness Hayles to apply for his expenses. Hayles had been subpoenaed by the prosecution at Lyttelton, and had been put to the expense of L 3 as passage money, L 3 return ; passage, and six days’ stay in Dunedin. On aPPtyiQg to the .Clerk of the Court he was told that as there was no committal he had no power to grant tys expenses. He (Mr Bathgate) submitted that his Worship had power in extraerdjjiary cases where' there was no committal to grant expenses, and this case was an extraordinary one, the witness having been brought from Lyttelton, If he had not come hj re a warrant would have been issued for his apprehension, and would have been put in force, thus com jelling him to attend. Certainly it appeared to be a monstrous thing that a man could be brought from one end of the Colony to another on hia own responsibility—His Worship was not aware of the provisions in the Act whereby he could grant the certificate for expenses of a witness in the event of their being no committal —Mr Bathgate did not think provision was made under the Act, but that it was a departmental matter. He would refer he Court to a certificate issued in 1868 proYf n® for such payment; and>ub-Inspector Mallard informed him the same was issued. - Ww&Jjj said tjiat mj ewy wjlipre 1

a private party seta the law in motion, prosecutor was responsible for the expous-s This was a very peculiar case, being one of a teat character, out of fifty possibiy, and it would be a hardship to the men to d ay them justice as it: were, by depriving them of the benefits of the law. lie must see his way clear in the matter, and if the witness would fill up the ordinary schedule he (His Worship) would certify to his expenses, and would even go further and send the report of the whole case to the Minister of Justice. Mr Bathgate pointed out that, until last session, the ca j .e could not be disposed of summarily, and M'llroy was not aware that such would have been done in bis case,—His Worship promised that this matter should be referred to ; and if a report was made as stated he would return it to the witness with the report ou that point, an i the result, whether favorable or unfavor ihle. Witness along with his claim, should attach % memorial stating the whole facts, and showing the hardship that he would sustain, as hitherto the case would hj ive been an indictable offence, and then there was no doubt of his getting his expenses He would at once forward a report with a favorable re commendation. —Th° matter then dropped. ; —Frauds Park, s was diecharged wi hj a caution ; Mary “ nue Tuppiu was fined 10s, or three days’; aud Mary Anne M‘Narvara 41)s, or fourteen days,’ The last named offender, an “ Asiatic,” had various offences, such as ob-ceoc language drunkenness, habitual drunkenness, , recorded against her, and his Worship remarked that it was almost a farce to sand her to gaol He regretted tha”. the old Jaw was nt in force, so that he might banish her from the Province.

Alleged Toll Evasion. —James Scott was charged, on the information of John Reid, tolikeeper, with refusing to pay the sum of 2s, legal toll due ou two horses aud a carriage which he drove through the Wakari toll-bar.—Mr Stewart appeared for complainant. Defendant, who drove the Halfway Bush ’bus, had for some time been in the habit of going to Mornington through the Wakari toll-gate, but had latterly gone through the Kaikorai Valley district tollgate, and then got a ticket which entitled him to exemption from the Wakari toll, it being within two miles. Complainant had at first acknowledged these tickets, but afterwards declined to do so. ond now wished to test their legality. For the prosecution it wae alleged that defendant had adopted the district toll route in preference to going through comp ainant’s toll-bar, as he entertained animus to him ; but this was denied by defendant, who alleged that he had gone through the Kaikorai toll-bar be cau«e it was the most remunerative. —His Worship held that as the proc eds from a district road toll were not Provincial revenue. but applied to maintaining the district road, the ticket there issued could not be valid for t e main toll road. The exemption provided for under the Bth section was only applicable to toll bars on majn roads —Defendant was fined Is and costs.

Theft. Lburies Humphreys, sixteen years of age, was charged with stealing two pairs of socks of the value of 3s 6d, from the shop of Robert Brown, draper, George street, on .October 10.—This case arose in consequence of statements made by two boys named Myall and Les, wbo were charged with the theft on Tuesday last, to the effect that they had received the stolen property from Humphreys, not knowing at that time that they were stolen. Myall and Lee being now examined swore most positively that they met the accused on the 10th inst. a few doors from Mr Brown’s shop, and that he gave each of them two pair of socks. Detective Bain arrested the accused who on the previous day was sent to gaol for a month for stealing pigeons.—His Worship said that the conduct of the boys Myall and Lee was extraordinary in accepting tjje gocks from the accused and he had no doubt that they partly concerned In the theft. In sentencing the accused to two months’ imprisonment with hard labor, he said he had reason to bedeve that the lad had been a cause of trouble to bis father, but he hoped thut the sentence just passed would act as a deterrent to the accused and the other lads

Sly Ghou Traffic.— (eorge Murray Hose was charged, on the information of Revenue Officer Lumb, with selling a quart bottle of port- r, he not being a person duly licensed,—lnformant stated he received a hot tip pf porter from one Barker, on October 10 and having sealed it, placed it in Professor Black’s hands for the purpose of analysis, and received a report stating that it was fermented alcoholic liquor. —Mr Barton, who defended, objected to the certificate being produced. Professor Black must prove it was fermented alcoholic liquor. His Worship agr-eing with Mr Barton, informant referred him to the Adulteration of Food’s Act, whicji sajd that a Professor’s certificate was sufficient - M r Barton objected to Lumb c'rrying a double-barrelled gpn about with him by attempting to confound the Adulteration of Pod Aot with the Licensing Act. Professor Black must personally prove what the bottle contained.—lnformant: “Then I am floored ; he is not here ” —Stephen Barker said that defendant kept a grog shanty a mile the other side of Portobello. On the 7th instant he called at defendant’s place, and paid one shilling for a bottle of porter, the latter remarking that it was very i ood porter. The bottle was opened, and a glass of froth turned out, part of which witness drank, but could not tell what it was. Wit. ness then remarked that the bottle contained poison, and, having re-corked it, afterwards handed it to Lumb, who treated him to a drink.—By Mr Barton: When witness niet Lumb on the 10th instant, he was taking the poison (porter) to an apothecary’s shop—(laughter)— to have it analysed, but he then hapfled it to Lumb. He had never received relief frpfp Mr Popham. because he had been burnt out.—Henry Stone said that he was present iu defendant’s house on the date mentioned and saw Barker receive a bottle of porter from defendants, but saw no money paid for it. Professor Black having arrived, said that he received from Lumb on the 7th inst. a bottle containing fermented alcoholic liquor. Part of it was porter.—Mr Barton said that the whole case depended upon Barker’s testimony, and he submitted that he was unworthy of credit. Popham would flatly contradict him. and swear that he gave Barker relief.—James Henry Popham said that' Barker had applied to him for a subscription, b cause he had been burnt out, and at that time made false representation a . Barker wa« looked upon with suspicion by every settler in the Peninsula.—His Worship held that the case did not entirely depend on Barker’s evidence, as Stone corroborated him in Jibe main fact that the bottle of porter'was obtained and drawn. On November 3, in fjning a _man in the sura of L2O. he Said he,could pot in future fine a man less than I 60. tfie full penalty, and having given that opinion he must fine defendant in that sum.— There being two other charges of a similar nature, Mr Barton asked that they should be withdrawn - Informant said that he was not of a vindictive turn of mind, but he asked that the cases be heard, even though no penalty be imposed, so that it might aot with a deterring effect on others. His Worship recommended informant te withdraw the other charges, and he did so, mentioning that the witness Stone had lost his situation in consequence of the evidence he had given.—His Worship said that any intimidation of that kind by the neighbors of the person accused would b& productive tf.WefcWtf Of AgOftgl' *

Demanded Charge -- Edward Ryan, eighteen years old, was c‘ a-ged, on remand, with stealing one meenchaum pipe, bf t!ie value of 6s, from the shop sf Samuel Ooodeward, tobacconist, George street. Accused hud previously undergone a sentence of three mouths’ imprisonment for a similar offence ; and his Worship, having told him that ho had commenced a very bad career, sentei ced him to the full terra of six months’ imprisonment, with hard labor.