GREYMOUTH.

Grey River Argus, Volume XIV, Issue 1798, 11 May 1874, Page 2

GREYMOUTH.

Saturday, May 9. (Before W. H. Revell, Esq., R M.) OBSTBUCXINa A BAILIFF. - -.-.-. „. Elmer, y. Bruce.— This was a charge brought by F. : J. Elmer, bailiff of the Resident Magistrate's Court, Grey mouth, against Alfred : Bruce, mate of the"p;s.' Wallace, of removing two cases of goods from his possession on the 29th April. Mr Perkins appeared for the complainant, \ and Mr Guinness for the defence.; ■: The evidence of the complainant was as follows :— I am-bailiff of the R.M. Court of : Greymouth. On the 28th of April iast I received a warrant to execute., In pursuance, with the directions contained in the same, I proceeded on board the steamer Wallace, lying alongside the wharf at Greymouth, and took possession of two cases addressed. " Shannon, Westport." I went on board the boat in company with the Captain, and seized, the, goods in his presence. ■ 1 remained in possession of the goods on the steamerV ctsck/ for about two or .three hours ; at the expiration of that time one of the sailors received orders from the defendant to put the cases below; I showed the man my warrant, and took my seat on top of one of the cases. Another seaman came to his assistance, and they turned the case 3 into the vessel's . hold. I kept my hand on them as long as it was possible to do so. When the cases were put into the hold, I sat on the edge of the hatchway, arid kept my feet on the cases. . .Acting "under defendant's orders, one of the seamen closed half the batch, and said to mej " clear out of that, or you will get your legs broke." I refused to move, and the man asked defendant what he should do. Defendant said, " Sling him out of that." and acting under these instructions I was forcibly removed, and the hatchway closed, by which proceeding I lost possession of the goods. - ' . v . For the defence, it was argued that there was no removal of -the. goods, in question. The cases were placed on deck while the steamer was filled with: coal, and then as no attempt had been made to remove them they were returned to the hold. The goods were in ,, possession of the captain of the steamer, arid he could .put them in whatever part of the vessel he thought proper. The bailiff did not attempt the removal of the j goods, and the ateamer started at :the. advertised time, and the bailiff could have gone with the goods had- he been so inclined. ; ' ■■•.;. ,- *■: Alfred Bruce said : I am mate of the ateamer Wallace. On the" 28th of last month I ordered some cargo 1 to ; be placed on deck to allow for taking in coal. When we had loaded up the coal I ordered the men to 'put 'the cargo back, among the rest two cases. Plaintiff said " they are my property— don't touch them." I told him I knew nothing about him, and bade the men go on with their work. The men put the cases in the hold, and plaintiff sat on the hatchway. I told him to take his legs but of that. He refused, and one of the men took hold of him by the shoulders, when he jumped aside,. and the hatches were closed, and plaintiff went away. The. Magistrate held that the go.ods were removed from, the bailiff's possession by the defendant's orders, and inflicted a fine of LlO and costs. . : -, •. . ,"- - James GUlilan and Robert Watson/ two of the seamen .of the vessel, who obeyed the ma'cs's orders, were then charged with a similar offence. The evidence was identical. : The Magistrate said in reference to this base, that although the; law held, all parties equally guilty in a case of this kind, he must take into consideration ] that defendants were only acting under orders in the matter, and therefore a nominal fine of JAj with 17s costsj. would be inflicted in each case. ! Mr Guinness gave notice of appeal. 1 .