RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4180, 20 July 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, July 20. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.)

Martin and Watson v. William Cummings. —Claim of LI 2s for coal and timber supplied.—The defendant had paid 5s since the sflrVide of the summons and judgment was given for plaintiff for 17s with costs. F. lewis v. J. J. Atkinson.—Claim L 36 10s for wine supplied. Mr S. N. Muir append fof the plaintiff for whom judgment was given with costs. Brindley v. Mitchell. - Claim LI for damage td an express through collision. Judgment for plaintiff for 16a with costs. William Con Hell v William .Davoy.—• This was an information brought by iLil-way-constable Connell against defendant, a young man, for trespassing on the Port Chalmers railway-lines, on Sunday, the 16th inst: Defendant pleaded guilty.—Mr E. Cook appeared for the complainant, and stated that the case was not brought with a view of pressing for a heavy penalty, but merely to give the matter publicity, and to obtain bis Worship’s ruling. The habit of trespassing on railways was a most dangerous one, and the lives of those who committed the trespass were in danger. This case was brought forward as a test case, and to act as a caution to those who trespassed. Throughout the Colony several persons had been killed on the ffti way lines, and unless trespassers were deterred by law it would be impossible 'to avoid further accident. Persons on being requested not to trespass on the line frequently gave great annoyance to the railway officials. In this case, the most nominal punishment would be sufficient to satisfy the object in view.—lnformant deposed that the trespass complained of was committed at Pelichet Bay. Witness observed defendant and some others trespassing on the line. Witness asked defendant his name, and requested him to get off the line.—His Worship, in delivering judgment, said ; The 7th section of the Railway Offences Act provides that if any person should s\ ilfully trespass upon any railway, or on any station or other Works on the premises connected therewith, he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding L 5. It is not necessary that the offender shall be requested to leave if he trespass there he incurs the penalty under the Statute. This case, I understand, is brought in order that the public may be fully informed that any trespass on the railways or works connected therewith makes the offender liable to incur the penalty which I have mentioned. In this first case a nominal penalty only has been asked, as it is believed the publication of the case will answer the end in view. As the defendant offered no incivility to the police officer, and the whole circumstances are so far in his favor, I will take that suggestion into account, and shall only award a nominal

penalty. But it is only my duty to say that trespasser upon a railway not only runs the risk of his own life but necessarily in* volyes risk and danger of accident to any train which may come suddenly upon him ; and that if this practice be continued, it will he my duty t j ensure, as far as p< asible, the safety of the public by awarding the full penalty (L 5) in every case. In tnis case 1 limit the penalty to 5s and costs.