Resident Magistrate's Court.

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 118, 23 May 1868, Page 5

Resident Magistrate's Court.

BLENHEIM— Monday, May IS, 1868

[Before S. L. Mulder, Esq., R.M., and J. B. Wemyss, Esq., J. P.] CASE OF ALLEGED FRAUD. John O'Sullivan was charged on. the information of Mr. H. Dodson with stealing and feloniously carrying away a quantity, of goods, the property of Mr. J. F. Hathaway. The prisoner was defended by Mr. Campbell and Mr. Turton ; and Mr. Nelson was also retained. Mr. Hathaway, in reply to the Bench, deposed that he was an inn-keeper at the Ferry.— The Court asked Mr. Dodson if he was going to conduct the case. Mr. Dodson was proceeding to question the witness when Mr. Campbell objected to Mr. Dodson acting for the prosecution—not being a professional man. The Court said Mr. Dodson was the real prosecutor. Mr. Campbell showed that according to the warrant, Mr. Dodson was only the informant, and that Mr. Hathaway was the prosecutor. The Court agreed that Mr. Dodson was only the informant, apparently, but he had greater interest in the case, through being one of the trustees for Sullivan under the recent assignment. . Mr. Campbell contended that Hathaway was the prosecutor, and that Dodson could not file a criminal charge. Mr. Dodson said he had a lien upon the goods in question. Mr. Campbell argued that the information should be dismissed, and a new one filed.

Mr. Turton followed to the same effect. The Court then ordered that the, information be withdrawn, and the proceedings commenced de novo. Mr. Turton applied for the discharge of the prisoner. Mr. Campbell suggested that the,warrant should be amended, and the case gone into. The Court: Mr. Dodson can’t conduct this case, not being a professional man; He could not see how Mr. Dodson was terested, no more than anyone who was desirous of furthering the ends of justice; Mr. Dodson could lay an information,': as anyone could do upon oath, but the owner of the goods must prosecute. Mr. Hathaway: The goods were mine, but I do not feel justified in prosecuting, and have expressed no wish to do so. . The Court: If you don’t prosecute, the case falls to the ground, and the prisoner will be discharged. : Mr. Turton asked the Court to endorse the summons. The Court: We could not do that,.asit would debar future proceedings. It is optional with the Bench whether they do so or not. Mr. Turton read clause 63 of the Justices of the Peace Act, in support of his application.

The Court said if the prosecutors like to take up the case again they can do so. There is no evidence before the Court to show whether the charge is a wrong one, so as to justify the Bench in endorsing the summons. At the same time there may he no valid case against the prisoner, as any man may be arrested upon a mere statement, as long as it is made upon oath. The prisoner was then discharged. n.. m'ixttre v. w. n. bursill. Thrs'waaW claim for £2O 6s. Qd., wages due; £ls had been paid into Court by des fendant. Mr. Nelson acted for plaintiff. ?.’ The plaintiff, on being sworn, said Angus McCauL, who was in charge of the station at the time, engaged me, saying that others were getting £2, and he supposed I .would get the same. When Mr. Bursill came back, McCaul asked him if I was to have £2, and Mr. Bursill I believe agreed. Mr. Bursill has since offered to pay me at the rate of only 30s. a week. I have always had £2 for mustering. Angus McCaul deposed: I was engaged by Mfr'Bursrll to go up mustering two Tmdnthi7"ar*£2 a week. As Mr. Bursill fell ill, he asked me to go on with the mustering, and to get hands,. I told M‘lntyre when I engaged him that I supposed he would get the same wages as I got. I told Mr. Bursill afterwards that the man expected £2, and he agreed to give it. 'W** By Mr. Bursill: T agreed to manage the mustering for you, but~l was only engaged and paid for mustering. The defendant said, as I fell ill, I askecß McCaul if he would manage the place. He* said he would. When I -went back to the station, I asked him what arrangement he had made with the hands. He said I have made none. Some time after, some of. the hands were going away, and I asked them what wages they wanted. They said-£2 a week- Ht* paid" off three of therU|. tbo

highest wages being 80s. a week. I spoke to Angus one day as to what Dugald was asking. He said £2 a week. I said, “ Well, I suppose I'll have to give it him.” A fortnight afterwards, when he was leaving, I reasoned with him upon £2 being too much, when he had been retained for so long a period as ten weeks. Mr. Nelson did not see it necessary to address the Court.

The Bench gave judgment for plaintiff, with £3 14s. costs.