The Globe. SATURDAY, JANUARY 2, 1875.

Globe, Volume II, Issue 177, 2 January 1875, Page 2

The Globe. SATURDAY, JANUARY 2, 1875.

The newly appointed Besident Magistrate for Christchurch would seem to have curious views as to the amount of fine, or punishment, which it is necessary to inflict on some persons who are guilty of proceedings which bring them before his "Worship. Our columns of Thursday evening last contain the report of a case in which the fine imposed appears to us to be absurdly inadequate when the circumstances of the case are taken into consideration. Mr G. W. H. Lee was summoned for driving on the wrong side of the Biccarton road, and a second charge of being drunk and disorderly on that occasion was also preferred against the same defendant. Mr "Wynn Williams, who appeared for the defendant, admitted the charges, and was instructed by his client to say that he exceedingly regretted what had occurred, more especially as a severe accident had resulted to Mrs Campbell. The case, thus, seems simple enough. There was no dispute as to the facts. A man, occupying the position of a gentleman, gets drunk, drives down the wrong side of the road, and runs iuto a buggy, upsetting it, and seriously injuring one at least of the occupants. We may mention, by the way, that the injury inflicted in this instance, was no imaginary one, or one which merely caused a shock to the nerves, but that, on the contrary, Mrs Campbell, who was in the buggy which was run into, was confined to the house for no less than five weeks, and was in serious danger for some days after the accident had taken place. We must say, that if ever there appeared to be a case in which the heaviest fine it lay in the power of the Magistrate to inflict, should have been imposed, this seems to be the one. It must not be forgotten that a fine, however severe, is but a very light punishment to a person in the position of the defendant, and it would have been only marking in a plight degree the enormity of the offence if Mr G. W. H. Lee bad been mulcted in the heaviest amount possible. So, however, did not think our Stipendary magistrate, aud accordingly he fined the defendant Jive shillings on the charge of drunkenness, and a further sum of ten sJiillinr/s for driving the wrong side of the road and seriously injuring a lady ! The decision seems to us to be simply monstrous. It has nothing whatever to do with the amount of fine inflicted, that the expenses of the witnesses amounted to a larger sum than usual. That is an accident, arising, in this case, from the fact that one of those persons required to give evidence was obliged to come from Dunedin to appear in Court. And again, the fact that a civil action for damages is to be brought, has nothing to do with the punishment which ought to have been inflicted in the Magistrate's Court on one who who 'had by his conduct endangered the lives of travellers on a much used thoroughfare. If offenders of this class are to be treated with such leniency, we may expect a good many cases of drunkenness and furious driving in Christchurch and its suburbs.