MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1963, 9 June 1880, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

GHBIBTOHUEOH. Monday, Jttnb 9. [Before G. L. Lee. Esq., and Dr. Dearoer, J.P.'s.j DfiUNr and Disobdbbly. Seven first offenders were fined 5s each, and in one instance Is 6i cab hire. Neglected Child.—William Balph was brought up on remand. The police asked for a further remand till Monday, June 14th. Granted. Labcbny.—John Kelly was charged with the larceny of a coat, value 20s, the property of George Judd. As priso-er was only arrested yesterday at Ashburton, and it was thought other charges would be preferred against him, he was remanded till Wednesday next, June 16th.. Laboeny of a Clock.—George Saunders was charged with the larceny of a clock, vain© £2 10s, the property of John O'Brien. After hearing the evidence, the Bench sentenced prisoner to one months' imprisonment with hard labor. LYTTELTON. Wednesday, Jtoh 9. [Beofore J. Bf swick, Esq., 8.M., and X. W. Potts, Esq., J.P.] Laeobny.—Henry Jennings, late steward of the barque Trevelyan, was charged with the larceny of a number of articles of apparel. Mr Nalder appeared for the accused, and at the instance of the police the Bench remanded the prisoner until Monday next, to be admitted to bail on finding one surety of £25, and himself in a like sum. Bbeach o» the Haebob Beottlationb.— John Cameron, Peter Cameron, and William Cameron were charged with a breach of the Harbor Begulations by allowing ballast to ba deposited in the harbor contrary to the statute. Mr John Cameron was present to represent the defendants, and Mr Nalder appeared to prosecute. Counsel, on opening the case, said there was one clause in the report of the case of the previous day, as given in the Pbess, which was incorrect, and that what he did say was that the lighten were suitable ones for carrying ballast across the harbor. He wished to say this, as it might be inferred from the report that the harbormaster and himself considered they were not suitablo lightera for this port. His remark was made in reply to something that fell from the Bench, in reference to drawing the Harbor Board's attention to the class of lighters, and to the remarks made by the master of the Assel, to Jthe effect that the lighters were unsuitable for the work. In reference to some of the witnesses in the first case, Mr Haider said that of Mr Owen and Mr Lee he had heard it had got about that it was through information given by them that the charge was laid. He wished to say that such was not the case. It was not through them that the information was laid, nor had they any part in bringing the charge. Ho considered it was proper that this should be said, tha* witnesses brought to the Court to give evidence might not suffer by any misapprehension getting about. Counsel then proceeded to address the Bench upon the circumstances of the case, and in the course of his remarks, said that he did not for a moment wish it understood that the defendant, Mr Cameron, would personally sanction the commission of the offence of which he was charged. Ihe Bench said they supposed, though the defence would not be made, that the defendants were not responsible for the actions of their servants. The evidence was then taken. H. McLellan, harbor master, gave evidence similar to that in the case reported on Tues day. He testified to the defendant's vessel the Novelty, bsing employed in lightering the stone produced, as having been dredged up from alongside the barge Assel. Some large boulders were shown to the witness, ard 1 e said that three or four of such pieces of rock would be tufficient to seriously damage the copper on any wooden vessel, should the vessel come in contact with them, and might damage an iron ship. John Bobertson, master of the Assel, repeated for the most part the evidence given by him the previous day. He testified to having contracted with the defendant to get the ballast discharged from his ship. In cross-examination witness said he thought the defendant took precautions to prevent the ballast falling overboard, and that he did all he could to prevent it. B. Owen also repeated the evidence given by him on the day previous, as to seeing the stones going from the lighter overboard. Edward Lee gave his evidence as in the previous case. The stone escaped through a hole in the bulwarks of the lighter. Captain McLellan recalled by the defendant said, that from what he had seen of him (the defendant) he did not think ho would have allowed the ballast to fall from the lighter, had he been aware of it. The defendant having addressed the Bench, the Court gave its decision that there was no doubt but he was responsible. There might be do qi •it ion that he personally had not shown any negligence, and that had he been there he would not have allowed the stone to go over. As it was he was liable to a penalty of £2O, but taking all the circumstances into consideration, a fine of £lO and costs would be imposed. Cittl Case. —Boman v Venning, claim £lO 8s; judgment for amount claimed and eotts.