RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume IX, Issue 651, 22 March 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA.

Monday, Makch 14, (Before C. Whitefoord, Eaq., R.M.) James Dorris was charged with being drnnk and disorderly, at Camp town, on the 9th February. Mr Drury appeared for the defence. Constable Sweeney objected to Mr Drury appearing in die gage, as he had no locus standi. The Magistrate thought that so long as he did not object no other person need do so. He would allow Mr JDrury to conduct the defence. Patrick Sweeney said he was the constable in charge at Camptown. On the 9th Feb, defendant was at the Comiiierciil Hotel, at Caraptown, in. company with, witness and other persons. In the course of the evening the landlord of the hoii3e and a person named M'Laren had a quarrel, and the landlord ordered M'Laren out of the house. M'Laren went away in company with defendant (who is a constable in the Nelson Police Force). After some time defendant came back io the hotel, without his cap, and said that he (defendant) l\ad been assaulted by two men, and he named M'Laren as one. Witness went with defendant and othera to search for the cap ; they went some 500 yards down the Greymouth road, but could not find it. On further search being made, however, it was found near the bridge, opposite Muir's store. Previous to this he ordered defendant to go the Camp, as he considered he was unlit for duty. Defendant and v witness went to the Camp, and when there defeudant insisted on going back to. the township. Told him if he attampted to do so I would lock him up ; but defendant made a rush for the gate from the police quarters. He then arrested him. Defendant resisted violently, and began to scream, which attracted the attention of the inhabitants of the township, several of whom came up, among the rest Hastie, Tymons, and Larrett. He asked the assistance of these parties to place the defendant in the lock-up, and they helped him. After defendant was locked up he said all he wanted was a fair trial. He kept defendaut locked up until the morning, and he then suspended him. Cross-examined : Was sober hirmelf on the night in question, Had a few drinks. Was not on any particular duty when he had a drink. Wa3 always supposed to be on duty. • = By the Bench : There were no regulations for the guidance of the force here that he kuew of. By defendant : I was at the hotel before defendant came in, and had. shouted for all hands. Thi3 was between 10 and 11 o'clock. Had whiskey, and may havt* had gin. Never said gin had ah elecbrical effect on his feet. • By the Bench : Locked defendant up at half-past twelve o'clock. Did not enter the charge, but rtportedthe matter to his superior officer at Cobclen. Also reported the case to Intp.actor Shallcrass, and it was by his direction this charge was brought before this Court. When defendant came back to the hotel he reported to witness that he had been assaulted by two men. Used no provoking language to Dorris at any time. By defendant : Will not swear that defendant did not ask witness to take the opinion of any respectable storekeeper in town as to whether he (defenda.pt) was drunk or sober. If defendant had not insisted on going back to. town would not have arrested him. Did not give defendant a blanket while in the lock -up. l Thos. Tymons : Was a publican at Camptown. Remembered Dorris and McLaren leaving his house oh the night in question. After the house was cleared at nearly 12 o'clock, defendant knocked at the door. He let him in and the defendant said he had been assaulted by two mon. He said he had arrested McLaren, when another man came and .rescued him and beat defendant. Sweeney was present. Went with others to search for defendant's cap. Heard Sweeney tell defendant 'to go. home and go to, bed. Defendant and Sweeney went to the camp. Would nob swear defendant was intoxicated^ but he was the. worse of liquor. Did nob think defendant was fit to do his duty. Went back to the house and shortly afterwards heard screams from the camp; went there in company with Haisty and Larrett and saw defendant sitting on .the 'door step. Sweeney had hold of his arms behind, and he called -,on witness to. assist him to put defendant in the lock-up. He did so. When defendant was being locked up he asked if there were any honest or straightforward men in the place who would take notice whether he was drnnk or not. Cross-examined by defendant : Defendant appeared sober wljen he went away from my house first, but when he came back lie was much excited; he appeared to have been struggling with some person. .The reason I thought defendant was drunk was because he took us ' in? an eutirely wrong direction to search for his cap, and from other appearances, such' as the thickness of his utterance. By the Bench : When defendant asked witness and the others to notice if he were drunk, don't know what Sweeney said. All the parties present said that they did not believe defendant had been assaulted by any person. Witness' own impression was that McLaren and. defendant had a quarrel. ; . Samuel Haisty : Was, &. storekeeper &t Red Jack's. Remember the evening of 9th. Saw defendant and McLaren leave the hotel together at about 11 o'clock. Defendant' was slightly inebriated. Saw him when he came back without .his cap. Could not consider defendant either drunk or sober then, just jolly. '^ext saw defendant in Sweeney^s hands at the caaap. ■■•Assisted to ppurt r him. in the lockup. , By the Bench : Did not consider defendant fit to -be on duty. Cross-examined : Heard Tymons and

McLaren quarrelling in the early part of tho evening. Defendant was the naeani of quelling the disturbance. John Krenzel waa called, but hi 3 evidence did not bear on the c^se. Archibal M'Laran : Was a shespdealer, and was at Tymons' on 9th February. Sa,w Sweeney and defendant there. Left the house with defendant. Had some words outside with Dorris. Defendant wanted to arrest, me, but I got away from him. Can't say if defendant was drunk, or sober. ■■•-• ,^ v -..^l:^ Defendant made a statement to the effect that the prosecution was. got .up by Constable Sweeney, through motives of vindictiveness, beciuss he (defendant) had applied to Mr Shallorass for the situation of bailiff to the Court, which was at present held by Sweeney in addition to hi 3 office as Clerk to the Bench. He (defendant) had been in the forge for 14year3, and never had such a charge bro-igiit ' against him before. He only had- three drink 3 that evening, one of which he had with Sweeney, who drank gin, on which occasion Sweeney retna'rkgd that when ha drank gin ib had an electrical effect <>n him. The appearance of liquor which some of the wibnesses said they Raw on him (defendant) was caused by the excitement of the scufH'3 with M'Laren. With" respect to going in the wrong direction in search of his cap, that wa<j easily accounted for ; there were, no lights in . the town, and a person might easily take a wrong direction ooming suddenly out of the light into the darkness. On the way to and at the Camp Sweeney tried to, aggravate him, and when Sweeney charged him with being drunk, he (defendant) requested Sweeney to go into the town and take the opinion of any respectable man in the place on the matter. He (defendant) was going away with that intention, when Sweeney caught him. They struggled, and he put Sweeney down. .In - the souffle Sweeney got uppermost and began to choke him, when he sang out. Tymons and Haisty then came and assisted to put him in the lock-up. He called on them to bear witness if he were drnnk or sober. He was placed under arrest on the 9th February, and was released on 14th March. He had been re-t fused bail, and denied an opportunity of getting his defence ready. For the defence Henry Larrett waa called : Remember 9th February, was at Tymons'. Saw Sweeney there drinking ; Dorris. was there also. Haisty and M'Laren were fighting. Defendant interfered and prevented a quarrel. Considered defendant wa3 in a fit stale to perform hia duty. At the lime the screams were heard from tbe Camp he proceededthere and saw defendant laying; with hia feet across the doorstep and Sweeney, kneeling alongside him, endeavoring to stifle his cries. When defendant was locked up lie called all present to notice the state he was in. Cross-examined : Defendant was not sober that night. Sweeney told- defendant two or three time 3he was drunk, and requested him to go to bed.. Would not swear that Sweeney was sober. His Worship said he should deal with this a3 an ordinary case of drunkennessit would be for Inspector Shallcrass to take further steps in the matter, as it came immediately within his jurisdiction. The evidence disclosed a most discreditable state of affaira, for it was shown by the officer in charge that he had no regulations for his ' guidance. His Worship considered that he would not be doini? his duty to the public if he. let the matter rest here. He would cause copies of tho depositions to bs taken, and forwarded t«> the Inspector at Nelson, so that Mr Shalcrass could further deal with* the case aa he thought fit. His Worship, then said lie would bring the case under the notice of the Provincial Secretary during his forthcoming visit to the "Gold Fields,' so as to ensure a thorough investigation into the whole of the proceedings. He considered the charge of drunkenness, proved, and he did not think the offence was of such a. grave nature as to justify Sweeney in locking the defendant up. The evi-^ dence of Sweeney was corroborated by that of Tymons, and Haisty's evidence corroborated both. Defendant would be fined lQaij with the costs of one witness, CIVIL CASES. .- ... . Sweeney v. Dorris. — A claim for 1^ .is 6d, being defendant's proportion of the mess account at the Police Camp, Red Jack's. Defendant did not dispute the correctness of the amount sued for, but he put in a setroff-for L2los, which arose as follows : — Plaintiff is Bailiff of the Court, and he requested defeudant, a constable at the Station, to serve a number of summonses, for. hiffL at Napoleon, the fees for whjch would amount to L 5. Plaintiff alleged that defendant agreed to do the work, on condition of receiving half the fees, L 2 10s, which he paid him. Defendant denied this, and claimed that he was entitled to the whole of the mile-« age and other fees, consequently when, plaintiff sued he put in a set-off for L 2 10s, and paid 14s into Court, which wpuld make up the amount claimed. Plaintiff 4 said defendant wanted to gp to Napoleon on his own business, and he merely employed him: as he would any other agent, which the law entitled him. to do. His Worship said he would not enter into the case as between the bailiff and the constable, as it would open the door for further litigation, at the same time he. expressed an opinion that it was desirable that the offices of bailiff and clerk to the Bench should be separated, and he would recommend such a separation. It would be inconvenient if a person came to transact business with the Clerk of the Court io find that he was away performing a bailiff's duty. In this case he would give judgment for the balance of amount claimed," with the costs of Court. • Mitchell y Pugh.— A claim for L343s for goods supplied to defendant and hia mates. Defendant deuied his liability, and also disputed the correctness of the. account. He insisted on plaintiff pro-, ducing his. books, After an adjournment this was done. Verdict for the amount claimed with costs. ' ' i ' The Court was adjourned tothe^Tth, Mj*rQh. L