MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2039, 6 September 1880, Page 3

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHBISTOHTJROH. MoNDAT, SbPTEMBEB 6. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq , B.M.] Dbcnkbjsness.—The case of an inobriate, who met with an accident after arrest, and had to be sent to the Hospital, was adjourned for one week. Eight others, against whom no previous convictions are recorded, were fined ss. liAßCßinr.—D. A. Crawford, brought up on remand, was charged with steeling a coit from O. P. Hulbert, valued at £2 10a. Mr Stringer, on behalf of the prisoner, admitted the oharge, which he said was the result of drink. Mr Loughrey said Mr Hulbert had told him that if he ba'i known it was prisoner who took tho coat he would not have laid the information. The Magistrate said_ he did not see there was any reason for treating the case as exceptional. It was theft, no matter what the surrounding circumstances. The sentence would bo one month'a imprisonment with hard labor.

Disobeying an Obdeb —William Patiocce, charged with allowing the maintenance money of his illegitimate child at iDvercargill to fall into arrear, now paid his arrears and was discharged. Bbkaohes op Cattle Trespass Obdiicance.—John M. Neno, for allowing two horses to wander, was fined ss. B. Sunderland, for having five horses at large in Victoria street, fined 53. Herat A. Wansey, for a similar offence, was fioed 53 and costs. Charles Smith, for having at libr-rty two goats, fined 5s and costs. Divid Gellatley, for allowing two head of cattle to wander, fined 5s and costs. Dog Nuisance.—John Connelly and Jas. Bowlker, for having unregistered dogs, were fined 20s and costs.

MISOBIEANEOPS.— David Lusk, for having no light burning on a hoarding in Colombo street at night, was fined 103 and coats. Babt. Brace, for crossing a footpath with a horse and cart, was fined 10s. 03SXBtrcriK& this Teastwat.—Samuel Thomas, a cabman, was charged with obstructing the tramway by placing a horse and cab across the line opposite the railway station. Mr Cowlishaw appeared for plaintiffs ; Mr Holmes, with him Mr Stringer, for defendant. Mr Gowliehaw, in opening the case, read clause 51 of the Tramway Act, 1872, under which the information was laid, and explained that the fact of the obstruction wbb not denied. He believed that, in justification, it would be pleaded that the place whera it occurred was a proclaimed cab stand. He would, he thought, be able to show that if any right existed it was overridden by the Act he had quoted. Mr Holmes said he did not admit quite as much as his learned friend had intimated, which would presently appear. Mr Harris, a contractor on the tramway, deposed that on the 23th August, when starting the train, from the railway station at 10 a.m. found defendant's horse and cab standing on the rails. A man was holding the horse's head, and defendant was on his seat. The obstruction remained for a quarter of an hour. To Mr Holmes—Ho knew there was a cabstand thereabouts, but did not know its boundaries. George Pateman. enginedriver to the obstructed tram train, corroborated previous witness. Mr Holmes hero said he would admit that a horse and cab stood across a line of tramway at the time named. J. E. Brown, director of the Tramway Company, produced an order in Council authorising the construction and maintenance of a lino of tramway in Ohristchurch. All legal requirements were fulfilled in the operations of the Company. Notices of the intention of the company to apply for an Act were duly advertised in local papers, and in the Government " Gazette" on April 4th and 11th, 1878. All plans, sections and documents were deposited where and when required by the Act. He prodnced a pl&n of the then proposed lines, also a deed of consent completed by the City Council, sealed by their seal, and a copy of certificate of completion of the work by the Government inspecting engineer. Mr Holmes objected to the acceptance of the latter, as it was merely a copy of a document which had not yet been proved to be the bona tide writing of the gentleman named. Mr Cowlishaw said if the production of the original document was insisted upon an adjournment would be necessary. Mr Holmes said he had no objection if their costs were allowed. Mr Cowlishaw demurred to being put to this expense on account of a merely technical objection. Mr Holmes said ho must have legal proof not only of the certificate, but also of the appointment of the engineer, who was said to have given the certificate. After considerable argument the Bsnch admitted that the objection, if insisted on, was fatal to the progress of the case, but recommended that, subject to the production of the required evidence at a future time, the case should proceed. This was agreed to. Crossexamined by Mr Holmes—Mr Brown identified plans of the lines as authorised. The Order in Council says that the lines shall run as nearly as possible in the centre of the street in the town. The tramway was not in the centre of the south town belt. He considered that the lines were constructed as authorised. In hia opinion the south town belt was £ot a street. There was a variation of lines from the first plan laid before the City Council, but notice of that variation was not given to the City Council. If the original plan had been followed the tramway v/ould not have touched the cabstand that then and now exists at the Railway station. He believed the City Council had made by-laws regulating the traffic of the tramway. Ke-examined —The line now followed is correctly laid down in the Order in Council, which ia the authority for making and working the tramway. J. G. Warner, engineer to the tramway, pointed out on the plans the orginal linos and deviations. The line aa laid down is Bubstantially the game as on the deposited plan, and as described in the Order in Council. Cross-examined —The order 3ays that the lines are to be laid down as near as possible in the centres of the streets, allowing for curves. It would be possible to bring the tramway opposite to the railway station without touching the cabs'and, but in that caao a dangerous curve would have to be made. Witness acted throughout under the directors' inatructiona. Ba-oxamined—When laying the curve out at the railway station he informed the city surveyor that the line would cut off a portion of the cabstand. The city 1 surveyor made no obj?ction. A. D. Austin, district engineer for the General Government, produced written instructions from the Under-Secretary for Public Works to inspect and roport upon all finished tramways in Ohristchurch. Inspected the prosent tramways and certified to their completion and state. Mr Holmes, addressing the Court, said that the evidence went to show that the real trespassers were the Tramway Company. Mr Brown had laid a plan before the City Council, on which the tramway was shown as not touching the cabstand, but the line as laid down was very different. The Order in Council was said to override the veto of tho City Council, but tho company had gone to the Council with one route and another to the Governor, thus obtaining what was never intended to be given. And even tho routo laid down in the Order in Council had not been adhered to; they simply took the line aa it suited themselves, without reference to any authority but their own will. There was no proof that notices of their intention to make application had been published in the manner and time demanded by the Act, and aa a matter of fact they not done so. By this omission the tramway haa not boen brought under the Tramway Act, 1852, and ia consequently tot under any Act at all, as the Tramway Act, 1872, is merely a delegation of the powers of tho Superintendent of the province to the Governor. Samuel Thomas, a licensed cabman, examined by Mr Stringer, deposed to hia Bbare in the obatroction as detailed above. His cab was atanding on tho cabstand when fcho tram wanted to pass. Cross-examined—Did not inow how long the stones defining tho boundary had been in their present places. C. Walkden, city surveyor, knew the cabstand mentioned before it was defined by dressed atones sunk into tho road. It is b.b described in the city by-lawa. Had examined the planß carefully as respects the positions of the tramway and cabstand. Cross-examined— Could not eay when the by-law proclaiming the cabstand was made. The line, as ahown in the plan produced, has not the same route as that, described in the Order-in-Coancil. Had irapected the tramway eometimes during its construction. Saw that the line would interfere with the cabstand. Did not report to|the Council that it would bo interfere, because various previous reports of his on tramway matters did not seem to be very successful. The line as laid down now ia a deviation from the line conceded by the City Council. It ia, in aome part of it, not in accordance with the Order in Council. Be-examinod —Aa far aa Mancheater street the line is laid down aa ordered in Council, but decidedly not

so, on the town bolt. The line could, he thought, have been laid safely without interfering with the cabstand, but whether a line so made would be safely worked with ihe company's cara he could not say. Cross-ex-amined further, witness Baid the ourvo from the cornor of Manchester street could not bo nude and the centro of tho street be still kept. Understood that the privilege given by the order naeant the right to use the south frontage of the belt. Would not give an opi»ion as to the strict moaning of the Order in Council when it describes the route of the I line as terminating at the railway Btation, or whether the B'ation, being actually beyond the city boundary, authority is given to cross the belt. [Left sitting. J ~~ LYfTELTON. Monday, 6. [Before Joseph Beswick, Esq , R.M.] Dhitj'K and Disobdebi/t. —John Bond whs drunk and disorderly on Oxford street on Sunday, for which he was fined 10s. John Mc-Ivey and William MoLloyd were eaoh fined in a like sum on similar charges. Disobedience on Boabd the Sissy.— John Aherne and Edward Doyle were charged with refusing duty on board the sohooner Sissy. Thomas Carmichael, master, stated the circumßtances, saying that the men refused to eo to sea alleging that the vessel was in sufficiently manned. In defence the men said that on tho passage down Tory bad weather was experienced, and the captain himself was unable at times to do duty. One man had been discharged sirce her arrival, and they considered another should bo shipped. The master said he had a full complement of men, in answer to the Bench, who then ordered the men on board or to prison for two months, two days' pay to be deducted from their wages. The men returned to the ship.