RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT; GREYMOUTH. "

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1285, 11 September 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT; GREYMOUTH. "

Tuesday Sept. 10. . (Before W. H. Revell, Esq., Jt.M.)

Keeping Pigs within the Boundary. — James Johnston was charged by the Inspector of Nuisances with keeping pigs within the boundary-line- fixed by the Borough Council. A previous action had been brought against the defendant for the same offence, and he had since then neglected to remove the pigs from his premises. The defendant made a statement, and asked for an adjournment until his legal adviser, Mr Guinness, could tbe present. This was objected to, and the Magistrate said the defendant stood convicted, and was liable to a penalty of L 5, and an additional L 5 for every day that he kept the pigs wifchiu the limits fixed by the Council. In the previous case defendant had a week to^ remove the pigs, but as he had taken no steps to do so, he would.be fined L 5 and costs.

Breach of Customs Regulations.— Wilmott v. Palmer.— The defendant, who is master of the s.s. Murray, was charged with a breach of the Customs Regulations, by landing twenty cases of spirits on the wharf without permission from an officer of Customs. Mr Wilmott, seuior landingwaiter at this port, said the s.s. Murray came into port On Saturday, and he produced the original copy of the manifest of the vessel. An application was made at the Customs for overtime, and it was granted in order that transhipped cargo ex Rangitoto might be landed. There was other cargo on. board— 2o cases of spirits, ex warehouse under bond, from Nelson. He attended to the vessel all Saturday afternoon, but no permission that he knew of was granted to the vessel to land the 20 cases of spirits. On Monday morning, between 10 and ]1 o'clock, witness saw 17 case 3 "of the spirits landed on the wharf, and three in the slings just being landed. He met the captain on the street, and asked him if he was aware he had acted wronjly. He replied that he\ was not going to make a .storeship of his vessel, and that it was his business to land his cargo as soon as he could. . The informntion was then laid. In crossexamination the complainant said that there was no officer told off to land the goods from the Murray on Monday morning. That was not done until the entries were passed, and in this case the eutries were not passed until after the goQds. were landed. — H. F. Andrews, Collector of Customs, said that in this case there was no permit given for the landing of the spirits; there was a distinct order given that they should not bo landed. The goods were landed- without any permit,- or entry being passed, or any officer being present. In cross-examination the witness said that the money was tendered and accepted at the Customs for the ten cases of geneva after they were seized. A quarter-cask of whisky was landed by the authority, and in the presence of an officer of Customs. He was aware that the entries had been passed for the quarter-cask of whisky before he left the Custom House, and before the ten cases of geneva were seized. — J. Wilmott recalled, said that 17 cases of geneva and whisky were landed on the wharf before he arrived, and the other three cases were in the slings being landed. He saw a quarter- cask of whisky pn the -wharf when he, came up, but as he understood ffqm Mr Andrews that it had been passed for, he said nothing about it. Before he went to the wharf he called at the Custom House and asked for the entries for the spirits on board the Murray. He was told that they were not passed ; at ; the same time he did not see the entry for the quartercask of whisky. Mr Perkins here asked to amend the information by substituting the word seventeen for twenty. After an argument between Mr Perkins and the magistrate, the former gentleman said that he would be compelled to withdraw the case, and lay another information unless the amendment was made. The defendant objected to the alteration being made. The magistrate objected to make the alteration after the case for the prosecution was closed. Mr Perkins maintained that the alteration could be made at that stage of the proceedings, in order to prevent further proceedings. The magistrate could not see his way at this stage of the case to amend the information, and declined the application. Mr Perkins asked the magistrate to state his reasons specifically, which the magistrate declined to do. Mr Perkins then withdrew the information, and the magistrate awarded the . defendant the usual costs. Captain Palmer asked for the costs of the detention of the vessel, qwing to this summons, but the magistrate said that legal proceedings would have to be taken to recover the amount. [Subsequently a fresh information was sworn, but the magistrate refused to order the detention of the Murray, and the case will be heard on her next trip here.] Abusivi Lanquagb,— lsabella Alabaster

v. Henry Pringle. , This was a charge of making use of abusive language, calculated to provoke a breach of; the peace. The language complained of was used at the,public-house kept by the defendant's husband at the coal-pits, on the Westland side, and was certainly of a most insulting and abusive nature. Two witnesses supported the complaint's statement. The defendant called senior constable Neville, of the Nelson force, who testified that he had known the defendant for several years. He was formerly a member of the force, and ; wa.3 always a remarkably quiet sober man. The defendant was fined 5s and costs, or in default 14 days' imprisonment.