MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume III, Issue 210, 10 February 1875, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Wednesday, February 10. (Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M., and his Worship the Mayor, and G. L. Lee, Esq., J.P.) DRUNK AND INDECENT EXPOSURE. James Lile was charged with an offence of this nature, committed in High street, and fined 20s. DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. Colin McKay, arrested for drunkenness, was fined 5s ; George Stevens, who had been repeatedly before the Court, was given one more chance, and fined 60s and cautioned, his Worship strongly advising him to take the pledge. DRUNK AND INSULTING FEMALES. George Leatham was charged with being drunk, using obscene language, and insulting females in a railway carriage. The accused, who had been under the influence of liquor, was a passenger the previous afternoon by the train to Ashburton. He had a bottle of drink, and wished some females in the carriage to partake of it, he used improper language, and caught hold of one of them. Fined £5. THE CAB CASE, The adjourned charges] against H. M. Goodger, for wilfully destroying public property, (and behaving so as to collect a crowd and obstruct a thoroughfare, were called on. Dr Foster appeared to support the prosecution on behalf of the City Council, and Mr Garrick for the accused. Constable Gattwood, called by Dr Foster, stated that he was on duty at the City cab-stand on the 29th January. He saw defendant there. He (defendant) was pulling away the fencing and horses placed around the stand to prevent the horses going on to it. He was doing this at the corner of the lamp-post, near the middle of the road. Saw him shift three or four pieces of wood, and a horse or two, and throw them to one side. Did not know whether that corner was fastened, but several portions of the fence were. Noticed that nails were driven into some of the boards. It did require some strength to pull the fence down. He saw another cabman pulling and wrenching at a portion of the fence. Mr Garrick objected to the action of another cabman being connected with his client.

Dr Foster contended that, according to the evidence of sergeant Wilson, the men had acted concertedly on a given signal. The Bench decided to allow the evidence to be taken. Examination of witness resumed—Saw the Mayor there when the fence was being pulled down. Heard the Mayor speak to Sergeant Wilson. Cross-examined by Mr Garrick The fencing consisted of a number of tressels, some on the ground and some on tar tubs. Sometimes the pieces of wood forming the fence rested on a tressel and sometimes on a tub. The wood laid along was about two inches thick and four inches wide, and nailed to keep it together. There was nothing let into the ground. Saw defendant catch hold of a tressel and drag it on one side, and throw the piece of wood on his right side. He pushed the tressel towards Carl’s Empire Hotel. He just lifted the piece of wood off and threw it away. He did not drop it. Was not aware that he injured cither the tressel or piece of wood. Did not see either injured.

Thomas Cooper stated that lie was a builder, employed at the present time as foreman of works to the City Council. He and nine of the Council’s men prepared the fence that was round the stand. Received directions from the Mayor to prepare the fence. Placed tressels ancltar barrels with scantling all round the stand. He meant the City stand, nothing else. The scantling was nailed to the tressels and the barrels when required; two nails were driven in each part. Between the ends of the scantling he had no means of nailing them, only at the ends. It was nailed at the lamp post end. There was no opening. He was speaking of the High and Cashel street side. The scantling was 3x2, 6x2, and 4x4. There were no breaks in the fence. Began to make to fence about ten minutes to six o’clock on the doming of the 39th January.

Completed it between eight and nine o’clock. 1 Was there nearly the whole of the forenoon, walking between the two stands. There was no injury done to the fencing up to one o’clock. After that saw the cabmen, the Mayor, Dr Foster, and Or Hart going down to Cobb and Co’s stand, and followed them, and arrived when the rush commenced. Saw defendant pulling the scantling down. He was pulling the scantling down nearly opposite Cobb and Co’s office, at the west end. The whole was nailed together, and was at a part that was nailed. Did not hear the Mayor, Cr Hart, or Dr Foster, authorise the men to pull the fence down. Used fifteen tressels in making the fence. Could not say how many were used for the City stand. Heard the Mayor give the defendant into custody. After the rush, placed men on to remove the things ; several of the scantlings were broken. The cabmen took possession of the stand. Cross-examined by Mr Garrick—The cabstand is somewhere about the centre of the road between High and Cashel streets. I have known it as a cab-stand for many years. The cabmen were on the stand the day be fore the barricade was erected, and I suppose it was erected to prevent the men getting on to the stand. My instructions were received from the Council and city surveyor, whose servant I am. The barricade was what I would call a temporary affair. I knew there was a dispute between the Council and the cabmen going on to the stand with reference to the bye-law. I believe that the cabmen thought they had authority to take possession of the stand under the bye-law. The question was objected to by Dr Foster, and after the witness had retired the question was allowed. Cross-examination continued—l saw the cabmen on the stand after that. I put down a fence of a perment character that night. Goodyer interfered with the west end of the stand.

George Gordon, town clerk, stated that he knew the defendant, who was a cab driver and owner. He has not applied this year to take out a license in either capacity. Remembered the cab-stand at the City Hotel being made by order of the City Council. Could not rightly describe the stand at Cobb’s, but it was at the junction of High and Cashel streets. It is oblong in shape. All the stand there is generally described as being opposite Cobb’s. Only a certain portion of that space is occupied by the stand. Cross-examined by Mr Garrick—l know what is usually called High street. I know Mr Wm Wilson’s shop fronting on High street.

Re-examined by Dr Foster —I produce a minute of the proceedings of the City Council, on 25th January, 1875, authorising the closing of the cabstands. It purports to have been signed by the Mayor at next meeting. The resolution refers to cabs and cabstands generally. The following is the minute—- “ That the police have instructions to remove all persons owning or driving borough carriages and cabs who have not taken a license for public use, pursuant to the hackney carriage bye-law, from the City Council cabstands until such licenses be procured.” The marginal note is as follows : —Police : “Cabstands be closed. I produce the Gazette containing the bye-law referred to. \_Gazette produced.l Mr Garrick objected to the Gazette as not being evidence, on the ground that if his learned friend wanted to get in the bye-law, he must prove it according to the statute in that case.

Dr Foster contended that as the minute referred to the hackney carriage bye-law, lie had a right to put in the Gazette to explain what would otherwise be unintelligible. The minute spoke of a bye law, and he had to show that such a document existed. After a lengthy argument between counsel. His Worship said that the Bench had determined to admit the Gazette. Re-examined by Dr Foster —I produce a copy of Gazette containing a copy of the bye-law referred to in the resolution of the Council. Mr Garrick requested his Worship to take his objection as follows:—I contend that the Gazette is not admissable as evidence of the bye-law, and that the making of the byelaw must be proved according to law ; the mere reference in the resolution to the word “ bye-law ” does not render it admissable without legal proof. The application of Mr Garrick for the Bench to endorse on the objection the reason why the document had been accepted was declined by the Bench. Dr Foster said that he had no objection to it being put on the record that he did not rely upon the validity of the bye-law, nor did he tender it as such. After some further argument, Mr JGarrick requested the Bench to endorse on the record that the learned Doctor had stated that he did not rely on the byelaw.

Dr Foster said that he should withdraw his offer, as it had not bern accepted at the time. The Bench said that the Gazette was admitted as a Gazette , and not as a bye-law. It would be endorsed as such on the record. The Court adjourned for half-an-hour. On resuming— Mr Gordon deposed as follows in reexamination :—I turn to the minutes of the Ist February, 1875. They purport to be signed by the Mayor at the next succeeding meeting. There is a minute there referring to the action of the Mayor in closing the cab-stands. The Mayor read a paper to the Council ; it did not come into my hands. A resolution was passed approving of the action of the Mayor in closing the cabstands. Cross-examined by Mr Garrick—High street extends from Cobb and Go’s to Mr Wilson’s shop. I have not heard that the cabmen object to the validity of the bye-law, I believe they object to the fares, but I do not know whether they object to the validity They object to take out licenses under the bye-laws. It is on account of the fares that they do this. The bye-law came into force at the beginning of this year—in January. The cabmen ought then to have taken out licenses. The cabmen have been using the cob-stands from Ist January to the time when the stands were blocked. I do not know whether the defendant before the Court had been using the stand before January Ist. The resolution of January 25th is the only one excluding the cabmen from the stands. The stand at Cobb and Co’s has been a cab stand for many years. Since 1868 I think, but am not sure. They have never been en closed till now. Before being used as a cabstand it was used as part of the public highway. It never ceased in my knowledge to be used as a thoroughfare until proclaimed as a cab-stand; I could not eay when the

cab-stands were proclaimed. I think before 1867 the cab-standa were proclaimed, and I think since that year also. If there were no cabs on the stand you would be at liberty to drive across it, the same as any other part of the street. It is at {present enclosed with posts let into the ground, and chains. This was done by the Mayor, the Council approving. There is no minute authorising the Mayor to enclose these stands. The enclosuie of the cab-stands the first time was sanctioned by the Council and the Mayor. It was approved after the erection of the barricading ; the approval was after the alleged offence by the defendant. This closed the case.

Mr Garrick submitted that there was no case, and his Worship had no jurisdiction. He should like to know what Ordinance his learned friend was effing under; whether the Provincial or General.

Dr Forster stated that he held the defendant had offended against the 25th and 26th sub sections of the Canterbury Police Ordinance, and also section 25 of the Malicious Injury to Property Act.

Mr Garrick submitted that his learned friend would have to elect which of the two statutes, he would go under, as there could not be two penalties for one offence.

Dr Foster then elected to proceed under the Malicious Injury to Property Act. Mr Garrick then called evidence for the defence, as follow:

Thomas Brown Bain—For some time past I have acted as secretary to the Cabmen’s Society, of which defendant is a member. As such, I have been in communication with the Council. I know that there is a dispute between the Council and the cabmen as regards the present bye-law. I know of my own knowledge, that the cabmen occupied the stands to the time of their enclosure, and claim to do so now. As secretary for the cabmen, I assisted in obtaining for them legal advice. The cabmen, including the defendant, were advised that they had a legal right to go on the stand and remove the obstructions. I know that the action taken by the defendant was to get on to the cab stands, acting as they were under legal advice. I know the locality of the cab-stand near Cobb and Co’s. It is part of the thoroughfare called High street. Notwithstanding it being used for cabs, it would be used as a thoroughfare if the cabs were were not there.

Cross-examined by Dr Foster—lt is a triangle, part of High street and part of Cashel street.

Counsel, on both sides having addressed the Court, His Worship said the Bench were not satisfied with the defence, and would fine the defendant 20s.

Mr Garrick intimated his intention of applying for a writ of prohibition.