MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2380, 18 November 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

Ebiday, Novbmbbb 18. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., B.M.] Dbunkbnness. —For first offences, two men were fined each ss. H. J. Stonp, for being drunk while in charge of a horse and cart was fined 20s.

Obstructing the Police. —Georgs Millar was charged with obstructing Constable Ryan while in the performance of his duty. The constable said accused bad endeavored to prevent the arrest of a drunken man. Accused said he had called a cab to take the man away when the constable stepped up and took away both man and cab. Case dismissed. Rowdyism and Vagrancy. Arthur Hudson was brought up charged with being drunk and disorderly, with having obstructed the police, and with having no lawful visible means of support. Sergeant Hughes stated that he found prisoner on the previous night at a house on the North Town belt stripped to the skin, excepting his trousers, and screaming at the top of his voice. He was very drunk. He was violent, and assaulted the sergeant when arresting him. Witness know prisoner very well. For the last six months he had done no work. He was the associate of and tout for two women of bad character, and witness had frequently received information which pointed to prisoner being a party to robberies of drunken men. Prisoner was convicted of drunkenness and assault, and was sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment with hard labor as a vagrant. The Magistrate warned him that if he appeared again on a similar charge he would receive a long sentence. Wilfitl Destruction op Property.— David Miln, a cab-driver, pleaded guilty of having wilfully destroyed property of Henry Dodd, valued |at 10s, and Government property valued at 2s, The particulars of the case were not mentioned. Prisoner was lined 10s.

Not Keeping a Light.—J. H. Stringer was fined 10s for not keeping a light burning before bis licensed premises in Colombo street on the night of November 6th. Obtaining Goods on Fai.se Pbbtences.

—George Hooper was charged on information with having obtained, on false pretences, sundry jewellery goods to the value of £4B 3s 6d from Hyam B. Marks on or about August 18th last. Mr Baphael appeared for the prosecution, Mr Holmes for the defence. Mr Baphael applied for an adjournment on account of the absence of a material witness. Mr Holmes made no objection, and the case was adjourned till November 25th.

SOUIHBBIDGE. Thttbsday, November 17. [Before O. Whitefoord, Esq., 8.M., and J. Campbell and H. P. Hill, Esq., J.P. ’s.J Police Cases. —A. E. Nioholls was charged with having a horse wandering at large. This case was adjourned from last Court day to allow Mr Izard, defendant’s solicitor, to show that the case must be dismissed. Mr Loughnan appeared, and having explained the case, hie Worship dismissed it. —Police v E. Burns, vagrancy, adjourned from last Court day to allow defendant a chance of obtaining work. There was no appearance of the man, so bis Worship ordered a warrant to be issued at once, as the police stated he was still loafing about,—W. MoYenuio, for allowing cattle to wander on a public road, was fined 5s and costs, A case against Ah Tong for allowing his horse to stray was dismissed with a caution.

Civil Case. —Watkins v Hughes, claim £9 7s Id; judgment for plaintiff by default for amount claimed with costs.

THE MILBURN CREEK

SCANDAL.

[Per >.s, Alhambra, at the BluS.] SYDNEY, November 9. The report of Mr Solomons, Commissioner appointed to enquire into the Milburn Dree scandal has been laid before the Assem y. It shows that three trustees, B a “® r » B , Minister of Mines, and Messrs Oraddel an Matheson, received £4500 of the money voted by Parliament as compensation to the company, which they appropriated to themselves without the knowledge of the shareholders. Of this amount Baker received £1450, tor which he had no legal equitable claim. Mr Solomon also finds that the particulars m the account furnished were wholly false. The evidence shows that Mr Garrett, M.P-i tvas the principal party to the oollusory transaction by which, in consideration of his helping the company as a member of the Assembly to obtain their compensation he was to receive two thousand of the company’s shares and a gold watch ohain valued at £IOO from Waddel, one of the trustees. Tne report adds that Garrett, Waddell, and Bussell are guilty of bribery and corruption. The following day Sir H. Parkcs, in moving the adjournment of the House, said that the report contained charges against some members of the Assembly which cast the shade of ignominy on the whole House. Messrs Garrett and Baker offered explanations, but the Government resolved that the whole question should bo considered before any further business be proceeded with. The House accordingly adjourned until yesterday. On the House assembling yesternight, the galleries were crowded. Sir H. Parkes rose to bring under notice the report of Mr Solomons, and moved that the Assembly proceed to consider it. The motion was agreed to without dissent. The clerk then read the report, during the reading of which Garrett called attention to the mani-

featly garbled character of portions. The whole of the evidence mentioned by the Commissioners was likewise read. The Speaker then called upon Messrs Baker and Garrett to offer such explanations as they desired. Before they complied, Mr Buchanan characterised the report as a vile calumny, and considered that as the House had not adopted tho report, the demand for an explanation was an unheard of procedure. Mr Garrett drew attention to the fact that no document had been made the basis of the charges against a member of the English Parliament unless previously approved by the House. Ho demanded a fair trial, and characterised the proceedings as a cruel travestie of a legal trial. Such a trial as the present was a libel on justice. He demanded the name of the accuser. IE the evidence Mr Solomons had accepted was true, he ought to be indicted by the AttorneyGeneral, because he was guilty of perjury. He challenged the Attorney-General to deal with him. He declared the procedure to be unjust, cruel, unmanly and un-English. Sir H. Parkes defended the conduct of the Government, which he declared was strictly in accordance with precedent, Mr Baker also complained that the House was proceeding on the report of a Commissioner appointed by the Government, not by the House. Ho characterised the report as most unfair, and then proceeded to explain his conduct, justifying his action. He claimed that the money was paid him as managing director to which ho was entitled. He had made no secret of his claims. He appealed to the House to do him justice. Sir H. Parkes then rose and said he had a painful duty to perform. All that the House had to do with Baker was in reference to his conduct as member in relation to the distribution of £17,000. The conduct of the trustees as a body was entirely unjustifiable, as was that of Baker charging six pounds weekly for services during tho time the company was insolvent. He concluded by moving a resolution declaring the evidence proved, that Mr Baker had been guilty of conduct unworthy of a member of tho House, and which seriously reflected on the honor and dignity of Parliament. The motion was agreed to without division. Sir H. Parkes then moved that Mr Baker be expelled from the House. Mr Forster whilst endorsing the previous vote, considered that the House was acting ultra vires in expelling a member. The motion wes carried by seventy-one to two. Mr Baker’s seat was accordingly declared vacant.