RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT GREYMOUTH.

Grey River Argus, Volume III, Issue 169, 12 February 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT GREYMOUTH.

■* (Before W. H. Revell, Esq. , R. M. ) Monday, February 11. D runkenne^s. — Denisr Collins aud Stewart Mbuteiths were each fined 10s and costs, or 24 hours' imprisonment. THE .TRAMWAY? DISPt'TE.-rCHARGK OF OBSTRUCTING THE LINE. Jno. Thompson, proprietor of the Ballarat Hotel, South Beach, was charged, ou the information of Alexander Burrows, driver of the carriage on the Greyihouth aud Saltwater ■.Creek. Tramway, with haviiig, on Saturday last, maliciously placed several logs or pieces of wood upon the rails near the Ballarat Hotel, thereby endangering the life of the complainant. The complainant therefore asked that, the defendant nught be bound over to keep the peace. -Mr Tyler appeared for the complainant,' aud in opening the case adverted to the serious charge .which might have been Lrought against the defendant, 'as the offeuce of which he had been guilty was realjy a felony. But believing that the defendant had some ii.lea that he was justified in -doing ''what he had done, the more lenient course now adopted .had been taken. - ' A lexauder Burrows, driver of the tramway, carriage, deposed that on Saturday morning he wjvs driving the carriage tnwaijds Greymouth, and when approaching the Ballarat Hotel at a rapid pace, he saw the defendant come;Ont of his house aud place seve al pieces of timber upon the rails. He put on the ■ break, but was imable to stop the carriage, and he quite expected it. to be capsized! but owing to the great weight of the wheels they fortunately jumped over tlie obstruction, and kept tho rails. There wore three or four. < persons in the carriage at the time. He cbnsidered his life was in danger through the obstructions of the defeudant. t Cross-examined by defendant : The rails are about ;'twofe_et from your door. You never cautioned me not to come through sTour5 T our groun d. ' Mr Kilgour did cry out to let the horse go on and not stop ihe carriage, but I kept down the break;" and tried "my utmost •to stop the hbrse, but could not do so. Joseph Kilgour deponed that he was a pjvsseriger in t£e carriage at the time in ques.tion, and.saw.the tiniber, &c.j placed on the line by defendaut. - He considered the lives' of all in the carriage were endangered by the defendant. When the obstruction w^s 'first; seen it was not possible to stop the carriage^ as it was running against the horse's iund quartevsv (hi answer to defendant). Did "not; teil the iliiyer not to stop._ '.-"';," 1 _ Defendant, in defence', pleadf d. that the line had been carried through: his 'property without leave. ■ The company harl some time ; ago promised that they would make his hbtel^ a station, and build aplatform, but they had failed to fulfil their^prbniise.' ' : The Magistrate; considered 'that the defendant Had besiiir; guilty i»f a most, wilful attempt to injure i the* limbs and probably destroy the lives of her Majesty's subjects. Whatever wrong he might tbink he had suffered at the hands of tne company, he had •no 1 right to take the law into his own hands, and to endanger the lives of other persons. A s he had before heard, . the defendant had been guilty of: a felonious offence, but it had not as yet been brought ..before, him in that flight. He had warned the defendant betore ; not .to'vtake the law into his own hands, .and -he should now therefore require him to find -sureties to keep the peace for three months •.towards the complainant, all her Majesty's subjects, himself iv LIOO and two sureties in LSO each. 'Destruction of Property. — John Thompson and Frank Elmer were charged on the information of John Thompson, of the Ballarat Hotel, with having on Saturday last maliciously chopped down a certain fence the property of the complainant, and thereby . caused him damage to the extent of LI 0. The defendants had been employed by the Tramway Company to remove the fence which the complainant had placed across the line, and Mr .Tyler for the defence argued^ that according to the .Statute there was no' case against the defendants, as they had a fair ana reasouabie belief that they, were jqs-^ tified in doing the. act; The Magistrate field .the objection to be good, and dismissed the ..case. .-'■■.■ '. - .- '■• „.; ■■■ ■■':.:•■ ■'-"■." y "',■' "- Theft of a Sluice Box.--Frank Riorden was: charged with stealing a sluice box, the property of one J. Colebank. It was proved however that the prisoner had purchased the box in question from a miner who had said it was his property. The magistrate dismissed the case, aud ordered the box to be given up to Colebank. Suhno:o> or LAKCfc>.Y— Jamet -MuVcith 1 <

wa3 charged on suspicion of having stplea : a ■■)■[ cash-box containing money and gold to the ivalue of between L2OO and L3OO frbin- the store bf Mr W. J. Coates, Richmond (Juay. . : ■■( Mr Inspector James stated that he was qpni- | Ijellod to ask for the discharge of t^e priabner as Mr Coatea although perfectly certaiu as ' to the iilehtity of certiiin gold traced, to the pnaoner, would not swear to it. - There were 4 very strong reasons for believing the pi isoner I .to be the guilty, party, but at present the 1 polieo had- not sufficient evidence to- convict \ him. The prisoner had been changing mqwiy ; and gold to a largo amount since the robbjry and his description answered that of the man observed near the premises at the time the robbery was committed* The, prisoner was accordingly discharged.