MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1913, 12 April 1880, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHEISTCHTIECH, Monday, A tell 10. rßefore G. L. Hellish, Esq., R.M.I Dkstboyino Pbopebty.—T. Prosser was charged with drunkenness and smashing the window of the cab in which he was taken to the lock up. The cabdriver estimated the damage done at £l. Fined 5s and costs 12?. Vageancy.—Ellen Boyle was charged under the Vagrant Act with having no lawful visible means of support. The defendant was just out of gaol, and promised to clear out of Ohristchurch if permitted. The cass was allowed to stand over for forty-eight hours to give her an opportunity of keeping her promise.

DRTJJfK AND DISOEBEELY. Tw3 first offenders were fined 5s eajh. Wandeeing Hoeses and Cattle. —P. Thompson, J. Wilson, George Ware, William Evans, and John Murphy were each fined 5s and 2s costs for allowing horses to wander at largo. Bbbaciibs of Health Act.—The cases of G. Hoelop and Thomas Toombs were tailed, und the Inspector of Nuisances, Mr Pearce, stated that the requirements of the noticcß had been complied with. Mr Cowliehaw remarked that it was now only a question of coe>ts aad his professional fee. Both applications were granted. Dbiting Acboss the Kailway.—F. S. Malcolm was informed against for driving across the railway lino while a train was ap-

proaching. Eridence was given of the commission of the offence, which was admitted, but extenuating circumstances pleaded. His Worship said, from the eridence of the defendant, it appeared he scarcely had an option bat to go oyer the line, as it would have been equally dangerous to have turned back.. Certainly a breach of the Act had been committed, but the justice of the caw would be met with a slight fine. Fined Is., cost* 2s. _ Andrew Johnson was similarly charged, and in defence said, he stopped for one train, but did not know that another was coming up behind. Eridence was giren that the gatekeeper had cautiened the defendant not to cross the line. Fined 10s., and costs, 2s. Bctbning Rubbish.—John Craddock admitted burning rnbbish within the belt without giring proper notice, and was fined 10s. FuBiOUS Biding.—George Robertson and Thomas Pepperill were summoned for furious riding on the road from Sumner to Phillipstown on the day of the Heathcote regatta. Eridence being giren that the two defendant* were apparently racing, and had made no attempt-, to restrain their horses. A fine of 10a was imposed in each case, with costs. Bkeacii of By-Laws.—William Quinton, summoned for learing his cab unattended, was fined 10s. Wiiliam Hayward was charged with not plying for hire within the proper termini of his route. Constable Johnson stated that the defendant's man was employed to drire his employer's 'bus to Sumner, but on the Sunday in question turned back in Lichfield street before completing his journey. Defendant said in his defence that his man, who was driving the 'bus, was not plying for hire. It was a rainy day, and as there were no passengers in the vehicle defendant did not consider he was bound to make the journey if he did not wish to. The man simply [turned ronnd and went home. His Worship held a different opinion, and said that the defendant had no right to start on bis journey and not complete it, to the possible disappointment of intending passengers. Defendant insisted that there was no law to compel him to start his 'bus against his will. His Worship said defendant was quite wrong. When once he started he was bound to fiaish the journey, and in this case it was clear that he bad started. Defendant had rendered himself liable to be fined, but he (His Worship) would in this particular case accept his explanation as sufficient, and dismiss the information. M. Groodger, W. Jordan, and M. O'Keefe were fined for driving their cabs without proper lights.

Stbat Cattle. —William Kirkwood was fined ss, and costs 7s, for allowing a cow to graze in Gloucester street. Alexander Doran was fined ss, and costs 7s, for allowing three cows to wander and graze on the Boundary road, Sydenham. W. Bowe was fined the same penalty for allowing one cow to wander at large. Breach of Pouch Obdixak-ce —J. Burns and J. Martin were charged with haying defective ohimnies dangerous to the public safety. The cises were adjourned by mutual consent of the inspector of nuisances, and the defendants.

Illegitimate Child.—George Foulston wis summoned for refusing to support bis illegitimate child, of which jane Wilson was the mother. Mr Stringer appeared on behalf of the complainant, and Mr Joyce for the defendant. The complainant lived with her brother-in-law, John Morgan, the landlord of the Halkett Hotel, Courtenay, where the alleged intimacy took place which resulted in the birth of the child. The defendant on oath denied fiat he had ever been intimate with the complainant, and therefore could not be the father of the child. Evidence was given upon the other side, the balance being in favor of the complainant. Mr Mellish said he had been surprised at the line of cross examination which had been adopted by the defendant's counsel, as it was suggestive of improprieties having been committed by the complainant with her brother-in-law and man, which the evidence had not in the slightest degree substantiated. Mr Joyce said he bad been led to believe that the plaintiff's conduct was anything but what it should be with regard to other men than the defendant, and he was quite unprepared for the answers which had been given to bis questions, or he should not have put them. Mr Mellish said that altered the case, but he disbelieved the statement of the defendant, who had manifestly said what was utterly untrue in the face of the other evidence, .as to the terms which had existed between himself and complainant, and an order would be made against him to pay 7s 6d for the maintenance of the child, 16s expenses of witnesses, and £2 2s for solicitor's fee.

OBSTBTJOTING thb Tbamtway.—Charles H. Los-is was charged that he did wilfully and without lawful excuse drive upon the tramway of the Canterbury Tramway, Limited, such tramway being authorised under the provisions of the Tramways Act, 1872, and did there remain in such a manner and for euch a time as to obstruct a carriage using the tramway contrary to the Tramway Act. Mr Cowlishaw appeared to sustain the complaint, and Mr Stringer for the defendant. J. Srans Brown, sworn, said he was the chairman of the Canterbury Tramway Company, Limited. He proved the Order in Council constituting the company, and the deed of concession between it and the City Council, also its inspection of it by the Government Engineer. John Smith sworn, said he was guard of the 4.40 train. Onthe2ndApril getting on to the loop line opposite Montgomery and Co.'s in Colombo street, tho train was obstructed and stopped by the defendant with a break and pair of horses. Defendant refused to move on until his partner came out of Montgomery's, which detained the tram seven or eight minutes, thereby causing it to bo too late for the railway train they were going to meet. Defendant siid at the time that he had obstructed the line to bring up a test case. The driver, John Collins, corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. This was the evidence for the complainant. For the defence Mr Stringer submitted that the information must be dismissed on the ground that the Order in Council had not been properly gazetted, neither did it authorise the Company to traverse the particular route on which the alleged obstruction had taken place. In reply, Mr Cowlisha i quoted MV Justice Williams' definition of the word " obstruction," to show that there could be no doubt upon that point. It was not essential to show that it was necessary that the Order in Council should be gazetted. That was quite optional, but by no means imperative. As a matter of fact, it was gazetted, but he had not put it in as evidence, as he did not thing it necessary. As regarded the route, that was regulated by section 4. which said, " A line from Cathedral square, in the city aforesaid, along Colombo street to the Agricultural Show Grounds, in the Borough of Sydenham, with power to make loop lines nnd sidings to places convenient for the traffic of the Baid company." The route obstructed was in the direct line authorised by the order in Council and deed, and he submitted that that disposed of his learned friend's objection. Mr Stringer then put the defendant into the witness box, who stated that the wheels of his break were close up to the channelling and not across the tram track. The width of the break was Sft. OJin., and the distance between the outside edge of the tramway and the channelling 6ft. 9ain., so that there web exactly a foot of space to spare. Mr Leach, sworn, gave corroborative testimony. Mr Stringer reviewed the evidence and submitted that if Mr Lewis's measurements were correct, there was no obstruction, taking the Act as it stands, as there was room for the tram carriage to pass on. Furthermore that as the lines were placed, it was impossible for the public to use the roadway in the full manner they had a right to, and which was provided for by the wording of the Act. This was shown by the evidence of the defendant that he had drawn up his break right off the lines, leaving a space of a foot between them. Mr Cowlishaw replied.sub aiitting that the company did not wish to run the tram to the inccc venii nee of the public. It was a matter for mutual concession, and Mr Lewis had conceded nothing. He might have moved a little further on without any inconvenience, but he had chosen the narrowest part of the road to stop, and in spite of the remonstrance of the company's servants persisted in remaining there and preventing the tram-cars from getting to tho railway station in lime to catch the train. Mr Mellish thought a conviction would lie under the 103rd section of the Act, which did not authorise stoppage on the part of the defendant, while at the same time it gave him the free use of tho road. The Act we a intended to be construed liberally, and persons using the road had no right to stop designedly where such stoppage wonld be dangerous. He could not agree with Mr Stringer's objection either as to the line of route not being authorised. As the matter had been brought forward as a test case, it would not be necessary to inflict a more than nominil fine. Fined Is and coits It, with, solicitor'* fee £2 2s,

Causing an Obstuuction.—Wm. Broad ■was summoned for causing an obstruction in front of the City Hotel by causing his fish cart to remain there. Mr Neck appeared for the defendant. Evidence was given that the defendant had persisted in remaining a quarter of an hour on the spot after he had been ordered to mave on and not obstruct the thoroughfare. Constable Macarthy stated that the offence was committed between 11 a.m. and noon, but on aearching his memory corrected himself, and eaid that it had happened on another day, about 3 o'clock p.m. Ha had laid another information, and had confounded the two cases in his mind. The defendant on oath said that on the day of the alleged breach of the law, he was not near the City Hotel at the hour sworn to. Another day he was selling oysters at 3 o'clock p.m., from his barrow before the City Hotel, and moved on directly he had supplied his customer. In answer to Mr Sublnspeotor O'Donnell, defendant said he was aware that there was a fishmarket ; but he lost money ■when he tried to get a living there, and that would not support his wife and family. Other fish hawkers perambulated the streets besides himßelf. Two witnesses bavicg bjon called in corroboration of the defendant's statement, the case was dismissed. TJnbegistbbbd T)og.—James Shields was charged with having in his possession an unregistered dog, and fined 20s. Henry Marks was charged with the same offance. Defendant denied it, and his Worship said, as the information was laid, there was no offence disclosed on it.