MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 1068, 29 November 1877, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Teuijsbat, Novembee 29. [Before Gr. L. Mellish, Esq,, R.M.] Disobeying an Obdee.—- Charles Cant was charged on summons with having disobeyed an order of the Court to contribute towards the support of his wife. Inspector Buckley told his Worship that when the case was last before th? Court, Mr Whitefoord had given instructions for enquiries to be made as to defendant’s representations that hp was unable to work through illness. The police had found that defendant was an out door patient of the hospital and the doctor had given a certificate that he was suffering from disease of the heart, and would never be fit for anything. Defendant was at the present time supported by Iris brother. His Worship told complainant that under the circumstances he would take no steps at present to enforce the order.

Embezzlement. —The remanded charge against Arthur Yon Poellnitz, for embezzling moneys belonging to the Acclimatisation Society, was called on.—Mr G-eorge Harper for the prosecution, Mr Joynt for the defence. —Mr Harper cited from Acts, George IV. and 14 and 15 Victoria, to show that an indictment might be amended, and the word indictment, in the interpretation clause, was shown to include any information. He would ask to have the information in the present case amended in the names of S. C. Farr and J.P. Jameson and others, instead of the Canterbury Acclimatisation Society. With reference to the other point argued by his learned friend, that the Acclimatisation Society could not hold property, it would of course still be open for discussion. its ho (Mr Harper) had said before, the accused, m rendering his accounts, hid shown in whom the property was vested. He would now ask that the words of the information should be amended o the mines of Mr .Farr, Mr Jameson, and hirers, members of the Acclimatisation Society.—Mr Joynt said he had not the slightest objection to the information being uncmlcd, but. it would simply raise another point, which his learned friend did uot seem to see, viz., that in the evidence nothing whatever had been led to show that any of the property belonged to Messrs Farr, Jameand others or (hat this property

was vested in them, and they could not own the property unless the statute vested it in them. The statute said that for the purposes of this Act (meaning the protection and distribution of game) the chair man shall be the owner of property, but not for any other purpose. With reference to hi;Worship’s remarks the previous day as to money clubs, his Worship had for the moment forgotten that these clubs were not statutory societies, but voluntary institutions who made their own rules, and by these rules vested thfthe money in their officers, and the servantwere liable under these rules, aud the indictments referred to had been laid accordingly. If the Acclimatisation Society could not hold property in law, the members of it certainly could not, and his learned friend was merely ringing the changes on the same thing. The case cited by his learned friend, from 14 and 15 Vic., chap. 200, was altogether a different case from the present one, in which the property was neither vested by statute nor rules. There was no vesting of the property at all in this case only as against a person who destroyed game. If the words of the Act vesting the property in the chairman did so for all purposes of prosecution, it would have been a very different thing. —Mr Harper said he must admit that the Act was defective, —His Worship told Mr Harper that he was afraid the technicality raised must be fatal to his case. Addressing the accused his Worship said he must make him fully aware that the line of defence adopted by his counsel showed that he had not the slightest hope of getting him (accused) off on anything else but by a technical point, and no counsel would have adopted this line had there been the slightest chance in any other form. He (accused) would clearly understand that he left that Court with as much disgrace on his character, and morally on that of his friends, as if he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He had merely escaped punishment by a line of defence which had proved effective, and he might go. The accused immediately went.