RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume II, Issue 143, 3 August 1880, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Blenheim, Monday, Auc;. 2. (Before H. Mclntire, Esq., R.M.] BREACH OF THE RAILWAY REGULATIONS. Henry Worthylake, of Grovetown, storekeeper, etc., was charged under the Public Works, 1870, with a breach of the regulations for that he did an act which may have obstructed the working of a railway and endangered the lives of persons travelling thereon, namely unlocking a gate on the Blenheim and Picton line of railway at the Opawa bridge, at a time when a train was due, on the Sth July last. Mr Sinclair appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Joseph Patehett, gatekeeper, stated that he was in charge of the railway gates at the Opawa bridge. It is the custom to close the gates when a train is due. On the day in question be locked the gates on the South side at a quarter past three, and then went to the North gate. Mr Worthylake carve up on horseback and said, “ I suppose I’m too late; but I suppose I can cross the bridge.” Witness said he could, but he would be no better off by so doing, as the South gate was locked. The train passed as usual, and witness went to unlock the South gate and let Mr Worthylake through, but found that he had got away. He must either have unlocked the gate or jumped the fence. Mr Worthylake told him the same evening that he tied his horse to the fence, and went to Prichard’s for a drink ; whilst away his horse broke the bridle and jumped the fence.

By Mr Sinclair—The gate was locked. I put the key into my pocket after I locked it. The fence is about five feet high. The lock to the gate in question is an ordinary padlock. William Bassett, station master, deposed that Patehett reported the occurrence to him. The gate is oft Gin high, and the fence 4ft Gin. A horse could not get through the wicket gate at the side of the large gate. There was a eattle-stop at the North and South end of the bridge. It would, in witness’ opinion, be impossible for the horse to jump the cattle-stop and get into Dodson street.

Mary Patehett, wife of the gate-keeper, stated that at the time mentioned, she saw Mr Worthylake cross the Opawa railway bridge, and come towards the South gate. She did not see him again, and does not know how he got away. Mr Sinclair submitted that on the evidence the case should be dismissed. There was no evidence whatever that Worthylake unlocked the gate, but he could call evidence to show how Worthylake did get out of the railway boundary, which was in no very wonderful manner. He called the attention of the Court to the fact that three weeks had elapsed between the time of the occurrence and the laying of the information, which was certainly accounted for by the absence of the Inspector from Blenheim, but it was unfair to defendant. Mr Worthylake was called, but the Inspector objected to his evidence being taken except through the Court, and the objection was allowed. Henry Worthylake then stated that after

crossing the biidgc lie tied the horse to the fence, and-went to Pritchard's.) YV hen he came hack lie found tint his horse had broken the bridle and jumped' the fence into Mr Dodson's paddock, where the marks of the animal’s hoofs were plainly visible. He (Wortlielake) did not unlock thejgato, or had lie any key for the purpose. He did not in any way tamper with the gate. Charles Taff’ner, horsebfeaker, etc., Blenheim, stated that lie had inspected Mr Dodson’s paddock, into which the horse was said to have jumped. The fence was an easy one for a horse to jump, and there was marks on the turf which might have been a horse’s footprints, but witness only made the examination on Saturday, some weeks after the occurence. Horses could jump the cow-stops, and Sinking 1* und did so not long ago. Wortkylake’s horse is an active little pony. The Court was of opinion that the evidence for the prosecution did not sustain information, to say nothing of what had been called for the defence, ancl dismissed the case. J. TATT V. COLLINS. This was a claim for L 4ls for advertising, &e., in the Marlborough Times. Mr McNab appeared for plaintiff. _ Defendant did not appear, and plaintiff having proved the debt the Court gave judgment for the amount claimed and costs. NOLAN V. ANDRILL. This was a claim for L 4 10s for a truck of firewood, and was disputed, ihe case, having been partly heard, was adjourned on the application of Mr Sinclair for defendant, on payment of costs of LI 13s, until next Monday, for the attendance of Mr Dillon, of the Awatere. Mr Rogers, who appeared for the other side, offered no objection to this course. IiIRKETT r. J. SMITH AND WIFE. In this case the plaintiff sued the defendants for that Elizabeth Smith, wife of John Smith, unlawfully detained certain articles of furniture and cooking utensils, and sought to -lecover the value of the goods, LG 10s, and damages for loss of time and expenses LI. . . , Mr Rogers and Mr Sinclair appeared tor the respective parties to the suit. Defendants claimed a lieu on the goods for rent of a cottage. After an ineffectual attempt to settle the matter between the parties out of Court the case proceeded. The defendants agreed to return the things and bring an action for rent next week. . . „ Judgment was then given for plaintiff with costs L2 11s.