THE FERRY QUESTION AT THE TEVIOT.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Volume I, Issue 40, 16 September 1863, Page 6

THE FERRY QUESTION AT THE TEVIOT.

(Before H. W. Robinson, Esq., R.M.) Hill v. Tudor.—This was an action brought by Mr. Henry Hill, the lessee of the Molyneux Ferries, against the defendant, Henry Tudor, for a breach of the Ferries Ordinance, in illegally conveying across the Molyneux 51 persons. The plaintiff conducted his own case. Tudor was defended by Dr. Keen, who is also a partner in the opposing boat, and a medical practitioner at the Teviot, who, his Worship decided, was legally entitled to be heard in Court. The plaintiff deposed that he could not produce his contract with the Government. It was not necessary to do so. His tender was accepted by the Government. Produced two letters, which, in his (plaintiffs) opinion, w;is sufficient to constitute a contract, notwithstanding there was no legal instrument in existence, which, in a technical sense, might be said to be a lease. These two letters bore date the 3rd and 24th of July respectively. The first said that the Government had no objection to plaintiff using the ferries at once, but that the contract could not be completed, owing to the absence of information respecting the u Ferry Reserves," &c. The second letter was instructing the plaintiff to reduce the fares for each foot passenger from one shilling to sixpence. Plaintiff further deposed that he would not obey the Superintendent's order to reduce the fares ; and that it was not legal for the Superintendent to mi ke any such request. He had no business licence for the Teviot Ferry. Had a number of business licenses; had two which, if required, he could produce. Dr. Keen here submitted that these proceedings must fall to the ground, as it was not proved that plaintiff had any authority to bring this action. Plaintiff then stated that all these matters had been discussed in a court of law the day before, but was called to order by his Worship, who informed him that he was not biassed by any decision which might be given in any other Court.

Frederick Paterson, sworn, said he was employed by the plaintiff as ferryman. Remembered the 18th inst. ; on that day defendant's boat was worked by one or more persons. Had made a note of the number of persons who crossed, which amounted to 51, including the boatman, who crossed about twenty times, but did not land every time. By the Bench.—Plaintiff brought his boat to the river's bauk each time, to allow persons to get in and out.

Defendant being sworn, said—l was in the boat on the day in question. I do not know how many persons crossed. I had a buoincas license

for twelve months which I understood entitled me to Government protection for that period, which has not yet expired.

By Plaintiff.—Dr. Keen is my partner; he has been so for a few days. He has paid me for a share in the boat. The amount was five shillings. He is to have a :?hare in consideration of that amount. Will swear that I received that money from hira. Edward Walter, sworn, said—l am one of the defendants, I worked the boat on the 18th instant. Will swear that I did not cross 51 persons on that day. I only crossed 30 and myself once. I cannot say the exact number of times I went over. I only landed once on the opposite bank. Plaintiff gave me notice to cease plying my boat. He showed me a copy of the Ferry Ordinances, and informed me that every person who crossed were liable to a penalty. The charge for each passenger is sixpence, and the money is divided among the partners. Mr. Hill, addressing the Court by permission of the Bench, said—He had no doubt the fares would be deduced, but that the Superintendent's letter to him was not sufficient authority for him (the plaintiff) to reduce them. His Worship said that this was a case of very great importance, and as there were six other cases he would hear the who'e of them, and then give his decision. The other cases were then called, charging the defendant Tudor with having crossed, or caused to be crossed, the following passengers, horses, and sheep, viz.:—From August the 19th to 24ttt, 523 passengers, 6 horses, and 9 sheep. The previous witness, Paterson, swore to the correctness of the number crossed during the days in question, but his statement was denied by Edward Walter, a witness called for the defence.

This closed the case, his Worship deferring his decision till the next clay, Friday, 28th ult. In giving his decision, his Worship said—lst. That the Teviot Ferry is a public ferry within the meaning of the Ordinance. 2nd. That the plaintiff's right to be considered the legal lessee of the Teviot Ferry, is fully established. 3rd. That the defendants, for a reason not alleged by them, have not been guilty of the offence. His Worship explained that inasmuch as the ordinance only rendered it punishable 4< to cross," or cause to be " crossed horses and cattle," but did not mention passengers, which latter was the offence alleged to have been committed, this action must therefore fall, through the error contained in the ordinance. The case as regards the passengers was therefore dismissed ; but when horses and sheep were included in the allegation, the amount of toll was ordered to be paid with costs in each case. The hearing of these cases excited great interest, the court being crowded during the hearing. The decision of the Magistrate appeared to give general satisfaction.