MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume III, Issue 211, 11 February 1875, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, February 11. (Before G. L. Mellish, Esq, R.M., his Worship the Mayor, L. Walker, Esq., and Colonel Packe, J.P’s.] FISHING IN THE DOMAIN.

Dr Campbell was summoned for contravening the Canterbury Domain bye-laws: by fishing in the Domain on the Ist and 2nd February.

Isaac Wilson stated that on those days the defendant was fishing in the river within the boundary of the Domain.

By Defendant—You were fishing in a boat. Defendant would like to ask on whose information he was charged. He contended that all rivers were reserved by the Crown, and so long as he did not trespass he was not offending, as in all licenses issued by the Go\ eminent the river was therein stated to be a public one. His Worship Then you contend that your license gives you power to fish in the river. Defendant —I do ;as I have the Superintendent’s authority to fish on any public property, or private where I can obtain leave. In the first place, I hold I was not on the Domain property ; and in the second place, that I had the authority as stated by me. If this information is held to be good, it will completely shut out all persons from availing themselves of the intention of the Provincial Government in allowing the issuing of tlnse licenses.

Dr Campbell then read the proclamation in the Gazette giving authority for persons to fish who had taken out licenses.

His Worship -But the license does not specify any portion of the river, and it would be subject to any existing proprietary rights; although you might have been in a boat, you were trespassing as much as if you were on the land.

The defendant again submitted that the Avon was a public river, and under his license he was permitted to fish in it. He would contend that the Domain Board had no right to the river. His Worship felt that where the river was not a tidal, those persons having property on either side had a proprietary interest. Dr Campbell—The City Council will then have the right to prevent me fishing through the city.

His Worship held that as the river was not a navigable one, persons holding land on either side had a right to the river. Mr Thomas interpreted to the Bench that Messrs Deans used, at one time, to take cargo boats up to Riccarton. That would show the river to be navigable. His Worship said the point was a nice one.

In reply to the Bench, Dr Campbell said his license was signed by the secretary to the Acclimatisation Society.

His Worship—But that does not amount to a bye law. Defendant—But it is consistent with the privilege stated in the Ornette, and he felt that as the river was a public one, where there were no riparian rights, he was entitled to fish anywhere in the river. The Bench did not agree with defendant. The license was issued under existing rights, and he felt the Domain Board had a right to the river.

Defendant mentioned that there was also no notice warning persons posted in the Domain.

His Worship—But you might as well say you would have the right to shoot the ducks on the river, or the pheasants. Defendant Not the pheasants; but at home he would defy any person to take action if he shot ducks in the narrow portions of the sea or river leading into it. The Bench could not agree with the views held by Dr Campbell, and would have to inflict a fine. Fined 10s.

E. Deacon and R. Deacon were charged with a similar offence, committed in the Domain on the 4th Feb.

Defendants denied fishing on that date, but admitted having done so on the 27th Jan. The bye-laws under which the prosecution had been taken were made by the Board since resigned, and the new bye-laws issued had not been signed by the delegates as required by law. Nor, as far as had been known, had the new Board adopted the byelaws made by their predecessors. His Worship said that the fact of tie bye-laws being signed by one or all the delegates did not bring them into force, Defendant—No, your Worship ; but it makes them law.

His Worship did not think that it was an absolute necessity that the laws should I:>e signed by all the delegates; that of the chairman alone, would be sufficient.

Defendant—But, your Worship, where the statute distinctly states that all the delegates must sign them, they are not, I submit, made binding unless this course is followed. His Worship said the Bench ruled against defendant on the points raised by him. Defendant said one other point he had was that the Superintendent had powers of invocation which he had exercised by the Gazette notice handed in. The bye-law made under the Domain's Act, 1872, had thus been revoked, and the new Board had not posted their bye-laws in the Domain in: accordance with the Act,

His Worship—But those laws are rescinded only so far as not to interfere with existing rights. His W orship said the old Domain Board had made certain regulations for the protection of animals and birds in the Domain, and any new regulations made were subject to the former regulations. The proclamation relative to fishing did not override those bye-laws that had been made. E. Deacon was fined 10s, and the information against the other defendant was dismissed. The defendant (E. Deacon) complained of having been insulted by some of the officials, and was advised by his Worship, if he felt aggrieved, to make a complaint to the Board. BREACH OF CITY BYE LAWS. For permitting horses and cattle to wander on the public streets the following persons were dealt with : —A. McTaggart, fined ss; Julia Clark, 5s ; Robert Gimblet, 5s ; F. W. Delamain (eight head cattle), ss. For having a fire burning in his back yard, James Moore was fined 10s. BREACH OF PUBLIC HOUSE ORDINANCE. Elizabeth Fuchs was charged with selling drink in her licensed house—the Wellington Hotel—on the 25th January. Mr Thomas appeared for the defendant. 0. E. Trounce, called, stated that he lived in Manchester street. He had no recollection of being in defendant’s place and getting liquor; but had a confused remembrance of going down to the depot and saying something about it. Sergeant Pratt stated that defendant was not the man who laid the information. By Mr Thomas—The man who laid the information also stated he had been assaulted, and was suffering from the effects of drink. Joseph Haskett stated he sometimes had a house in Christchurch, and sometimes lived at the Wellington Hotel. He did not get out of bed all day of the 25th. He knew the last witness. —Case dismissed. DRUNK AND USING OBSCENE LANGUAGE. George Elliott, who had been arrested on the Papanui road, for being drunk and using obscene language, was fined ss. Patrick Butler, arrested for a similar offence, in Gloucester street, and who had been previously before the Court, was fined 60s. STEALING A LETTER. George Wm. Westropp was charged with stealing a post letter, containing £6 10s. Chief Detective Feast deposed to the arrest of the prisoner the previous day at Little River, lie found a letter on the prisoner containing £6 10s, and directed to the manager of the Bank of Australasia. Prisoner, when arrested, said he could clear himself. Produced a note received from Mr Powrie, at the Little River, given him by prisoner, and which had been identified as one that was placed in the letter. Chief Detective Feast asked for a remand, to enable him to produce evidence from the Little River. Rem inded ’until 16th. BIGAMY. James Walker was charged on remand for this offence. Mr O’Neill appeared for the accused. Chief-detective Feast stated to the Bench that subpoenas had been taken out for the witnesses for the 18th instant, who were in the interior of Otago, and the police could not by any possible means have served them before. Mr O’Neill did not think the witnesses could be present by that day. He (accused) had a business in Otago about which arrangements would have to be made. Detective Feast hoped that if bail was granted it would be very substantial, as the case was a serious one. Prisoner not only denied being married to the woman in Otago but also in Christchurch. He Avould hand up to the Bench a certificate. Prisoner —If you look closely you may find that it is a copy of my life policy. The Bench granted bail in two sureties of £IOO each, and prisoner in £2OO, to be remanded until the 19th inst.

A second charge of wife desertion against the prisoner was also adjourned until the 19 th inst. BREACH OF STAMP ACT. William Slater was charged with failing to stamp a receipt. Mr H. Slater, for defendant, admitted the offence, and stated that when the receipt was signed the defendant had no stamp, but returned one to the person he had given the receipt some little time afterwards. Fined 20s. FAILING TO SUPPORT HIS CHILDREN. Anthony Ferrick was charged with failing to contribute towards the support of his four children, who were in the Industrial School. The master of the school stated defendant was in gaol on the 30th November, when his children were sent to the school. Since he (defendant) had been released he had been applied to for payment of their support, and had refused to pay anything. In reply to the Bench, defendant said he wanted his children back again. He was willing and able to support them himself. Ordered to pay £1 per week. USING ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. John Tetley was summoned for using abusive language to Isabella Lee. Mr Thomas appeared for the defendant. The complainant stated that on the Bth February she was passing defendant’s place, when he called her most abusive names. It was not the first time he had done so. She had not given him any provocation. Mr Thomas asked the Bench to dismiss the case, as his client, if he could, would be prepared to swear that he never addressed the complainant on that day, and would be ashamed to use the language complained of to a woman. There had been an information pending against defendant’s children, and he would like before deciding that his Worship would hear the other case. His Worship determined to do this. Frederick Tetley and Walter Tetley, two little boys, were then charged with beating Marian Lee on the Ist February.

As the youngest boy was only five years old, his Worship dismissed the information against him. The complainant stated that on the night of the Ist February, Frederick Tetley set dogs at her. They chased her, but didn’t bite her. He had also struck her twice -with a boys’ whip. Another little girl stated that she saw the boy strike the complainant with a small stick twice. The Bench dismissed the case of assault, and fined Tetley 20s and costs on the charge of abusive language. BREACH OF POT-ICE ORDINANCE. The charge against Stephen Warren, John Miller, Michael Hamilton, and Andrew McTaggart, cabmen, for obstructing a public thoroughfare, were, on the application of Mr Garrick, with the consent of Dr Foster, adjourned until the 19th instant.

WILFULLY DAMAGING PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE CITY COUNCIL, When the charges against H. M. Goodger and Andrew McTaggart, for wilfully damaging a fence the property of the City Council, were called on, Dr Foster addressing the Bench, said he desired to say with regard to Goodger’s case, the Council were willing to withdraw it, as they were satisfied with the judgment obtained the previous day. With reference to McTaggart’s case, he (Dr Foster) had received a communication from the secretary to the Cabman’s Society desirous of anxiously impressing upon him that the society had nothing whatever to do with, and did not recognise the action of the defendant on the occasion complained of, and Mr Garrick had also told him that he was not instructed to defend McTaggart. The learned doctor then related the particulars which have already been made public of McTaggart having remained on the stand while a fence of a permanent nature was baing erected, and notwithstanding repeated warnings given him he continued to occupy that position, and was fenced,in. He (defendant) then got an axe and cut himself out. To be thus enclosed, Dr Foster said, even after being advised, might have so acted on him (defendant) that there could be some excuse urged for his taking up an axe and cutting himself out, but there could be no excuse held for his immediately and deliberately going to the other stand, that had also been enclosed, and cutting one of the posts down. What he (Dr Foster) wished to tell the Court was that, taking the character of this man into consideration and his worthlessness, the Council had come to the conclusion to ask the Bench to allow the case to be withdrawn, as they did not wish others to be drawn into any connection with the vagaries of a drunken idiot, preferring, under the circumstances, to leave him to the police to be dealt with; and he (Dr Foster) felt afraid that the general conduct of this man would soon, unfortunately, compel that interference. The defendant left the Court, and being re-called received a reproof from the Bench for his jeering expressions and his manner while leaving the Court. At a later period of the day McTaggart, addressing the Bench, asked that his Worship would take a note of the expressions used by Dr Foster that morning regarding him, as he intended to take some further action in the matter. His Worship replied that he had taken a note of them in his own mind. [Left sitting.] LYTTELTON. Wednesday, February 10. [Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M.] DRUNKENNESS. George Wilkin was brought up on remand, charged with this offence. Mr Reston stated that the accused had quite recovered from the effects of drink, and the Bench, after administering a severe caution, dismissed the accused. REFUSAL OF DUTY. Archibald Thompson, William Abbott, George Robertson, able seamen belonging to the barque Queensland, were brought up, charged by Captain Gray with this offence. The Bench, after hearing the evidence of the captain, ordered the accused on board.