POLICE COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2060, 30 September 1880, Page 2

POLICE COURT.

CHRI3TOHUROH. Thttbsdat, September 30. [Before W- U. PiUiet, J. E. Parker, and H. H. PrißS, Esqs., J.P.'s.J Dbunkebhess —For first offences a mas and a woman were fined 5s each.

ASSATJXT.—Jos. Baynell was brought up on warrant charged with committing a violent assault on the landlord of the Heathcote Valley Hotel. . The police said that the sufferer was in an unfit state to appear, and. their application for a remand till Friday was granted. Wiipul Damage to Phopeett.—Daniel Howard was charged with wilfully destroying property belonging to the Tramway Company. Mr O-arriok appeared for the Tramway Company and Mr Holmes for the accused. Constable Cullen deposed to arresting accnsed on Tuesday night in High street, charged by E. Walton with being drunk while in charge of a horse and cab, and running into a tramcar. Witness did not see the alleged offence committed. J. E. Brown and J. T. Peacock also ordered accused to be taken into custody. The man was not drunk. The officer in charge of the lock-up refused to detain accused on the charge of being drunk. Witness then laid on information against accused for obstructing the tramway. The accused was then allowed to go on bail. On the following daywitness went to the Tramway Company, and, at their instance, laid an additional charge against accused of wilful damage to property. The Bench said there appeared to have beea a gross interference by the police with the liberty of the subject. A man had been taken into custody on the mere assertion, of Tom, Dick, or Harry, that an offence had been committed, a proceeding for which therewas no justification. The man clearly had been illegally arrested. Mr Holmes said, in

that case, ha applied to have accused discharged. The Beech took a note of the application, but ruled that the case must g< on. J. G. Armitage, called, aai i that on the night o£ Tuesday last, about eleven o'clock, he wag in charge of a train of three cars. The train was backing down High street, near Fisher's Corner shunting, when defendant, who was standing near his cab, on the rank at the City Hotel, got into his seat and drove his cab right Bcross the track, and remained there in collision with the Tear tram car, damaging it to Borne extent. The cars were pulled up, am accused was re quested to remove his cab, which he refused to do. The cars were nearly full of people. ISie obstruction remained a minute or two. Subsequently accused was given into custody. B. Walton corroborated the previous witness as to the facts of the collision. He gave accused into custody on the oharge of obstructing the highway aDd endangering life and limb. At firtt he told the policeman that the man was drunk, but afterwards recalled that charge. Tho horse was deliberately driven to where the collision occurred, and had not taken fright and got there accidentally, although he became restive on being forced near the train. Accused had considerable trouble in bringirg about the collision. The cab remained on the line a minute or two. After arrest accused said the tram cars had no right to shunt at the placa, or to go down towards Tattersall's. Witness is one of the stareholders in the Tram Company. J. T. Peacock gave similar evidence. During his crossexamination a noisy altercation took place between counsel and witness. Mr Holmes •aid witness, although he was a Justice of the Peace and member of the Legislative Council, who ought to know belter, was giving his evidence in a manner highly offensive and disrespectful to tho chair. He did not know what his Worofcips thought of it, but if he (Mr Holmes) oocupied the chair, he would not allow it. Witness said counsel was trying to bamboozle him into making misstatements, and hia answers were framed in a similar spirit to that which dictated the question. J. G. Milson and J. F. Stanley wera also examined, but had nothing to add to previous evidence, and the case for the prosecution closed. Daniel Howard, the accused, said his horse became restive at the approach of the tram oars, and finally bolted. The movements of the horse, as described by previous witnesses, were simply the results of fright. He had used every effort to provent tho collision, and did not remain on the track longer than he could help. He was given into custody by Mr Walton on a charge of being drunk. He was not drunk. Thomas Stou' was present at the scene of the accident. The affair arose through the bolting of the horse. Acoused was sober, and managed the horse with judgment. Lacy corroborated Stout's evidence. The train might have been stopped in time to prevent the collision, but a train going backwards the engine driver could not see what was going on, and there was no one on the rear car looking out for the safety of the train. There were no lights exhibited, nor were there any signals made to give warning of its approach. After hearing lengthy addresses from Council, the Bench said that the evidence was not strong enough to support the important chirge that had been made. Tho case must be dismissed, hut the Bench were determined to punish any malicious proceedings of the kind. Speaking for the police, the Bench thought their action in the case had been injudicious, to say the least of it. Accused was u reep ctable man, and the usual course of proceeding should not have been departed from.