Resident Magistrate's Court.

Marlborough Express, Volume IV, Issue 171, 17 April 1869, Page 5

Resident Magistrate's Court.

BLENHEIM, FRIDAY, APRIL 9. [Before S. L. Muller, Esq., R.M., J. B. Wemyss, and J. Ward, Esqrs., J.P.’s.] BARLEYMAN V. FOX. The following is the remainder of the evidence in this case, wherein the plaintiff, as an officer in charge of the Customs, sued defendant for having possession of a still. George Hoome Binning Monro deposed that he was a manager for Sir D. Monro, at Bank House Run, in conjunction with his brothers. Took possession on 3rd Eebruary last, from the defendant, who gave delivery of the premises and all they contained a few days after that date. Previously, he was in possession. A day or two after, had a conversation with Fox. I had an inventory as I went on, and received possesion from it at Bank House. Could not tell exactly the date. When in the store, defendant told me it was a well-fitted place for keeping anything you did not want interfered with. It was padlocked. He did not give me the key. Do not remember asking for it, but thought it singular it was not offered me. On the 10th March, saw him again at the Accommodation House. I opened the cupboard about the 3rd or sth March, by taking out the screws. In it I found the apparatus produced, with the keg, on the 10th. He came up at my request to the station, as 1 wanted to see him about some station accounts. Told him I opened the place in the store, and had found an apparatus which looked like a still, and that I disapproved of it. He seemed surprised that I had opened the place, and said he had used or tried to use it in the manuka, above the stable. I told him I wished it removed, and he said he would send for it, but could not do so immediately, as he was going to the diggings, but would in a fortnight. He had had it made. He mentioned the price, he had paid for it. Don’t remember who he said had made it. Subsequently, gave information to Mr. Barleyman, with whom went to inspect the place in the manuka. I found a bullock-bow, and a place like a fireplace, resting on four sticks stuck into the ground. Saw him fit the pipe into a hole in the bottom of the cask, which it fitted. I account for the lapse of time because I wished to consult Sir David Monro about it at Nelson. He told me that I was to inform the Collector of Customs that such a thing was on his place, and consequently I gave the information. By Mr. Nelson.—Got directions to take charge on Feb. 3, at Fairyfield. Went to Wairau Yalley same day. Had some con- . :

versation a day or two before the 3rd. Never heard that Fox intended to leave during December or January, nor since. Do not know when he left Bank House. Don’t think he was there on the day I went to take possession. Went expecting to see him. On returning next day from Wairau Valley, saw him at the Woolshed. Had not sent to look for him. The men were dipping sheep, and he was there with them. Have frequently remained at Bank House all night with Mr. Fox, with whom I was on good terms. He had spirits in the house, but believe they were the usual kind of spirits. Was never informed that I was drinking illicit spirits. When I met him at the Woolshed, shewed him a letter from Sir David Monro. He said he would give me possession as soon as he could. I staid some little time and watched the sheep washing. The cupboard was in the store room in a place by itself, where the men go to get rations. I allow men to have access to it without my presence. A person having the key could have put the apparatus there, although I was manager of the station. Do not remember asking Fox for the key, which was a part of my duty. No reference was made to the key. He told me he had retained the key of a room where he kept his things. Never had any conversation with him about illicit distillation. Never saw the place by the river side till Barleyman came, which was a very convenient place for lovers. There was no sign of spirits or melted grease about the cask. It would be a curious place to have a boil-ing-down establishment. The cook makes his candles in a whare. Have seen such fireplaces out of doors, and have heard of a house being burnt in the Fairfield Downs by making candles. My cook was present when the cupboard was opened. He came to me about six weeks ago. Took an inventory from the cook. For all that I know the cook might have had the key of the cupboard. I saw Mr. Fox on 10th March. I think I said it was a queer-looking apparatus. I won’t swear I called it a still or not. I don’t think Fox said he had the key. Mr. Fox never said to me the penalty for having a still was £SO. I should have got rid of it then and there if I had known. Mr. Fox volunteered the information that he had used this apparatus, but he did not say what for. I did not ask Mr. Fox to let me taste any of the proceeds. I did not try the little keg. Fox said he would send for it. I said I wanted it removed, understanding it was his. lam aware that one-third of the penalty goes to the informer. Mr. Nelson. —Have you been anxious for the billet which Mr. Fox held at Bank House ?

Mr. Wcmyss.—The Bench refuses to allow you to put the question. Alfvnndpv Mnnrg deposed that he resided at jßank House. Am a son of Sir David Monro, and merely living there. I lived there in November last year. In that month I discovered the fire-place that has been described. It was situated about 150 yards above the stable in the manuka and flax. I visited the place since, and pointed it out to Mr. Barleyman. By Mr. Nelson : I never saw any boiling down going on at this place. I saw a cask there the other day; I saw no grease about it, it was nearly full of water. I did not see any illicit distillation going on; I did not say anything about it at the time, but pointed it out a month after this to my father. It struck us as curious. My father asked Fox how it was one of the bullock bows was out there. It looked like a support for anything. My father did not ask what the fire was used for, nor did he say what he thought. Mr, Nelson was proceeding to address the Bench when Mr. Pitt said he objected to Mr. Nelson addressing the Court, and read the section of the Act. Mr. Nelson might address the Court in defence of his client, as he (Mr. Pitt) had a right to plead for informant. The Bench: Defendant’s counsel can reply in defence, but not upon previous evidence. The law said the Bench shall hear the defendant himself, or by counsel, and such other witnesses as he may examine.

Mr. Nelson: Can I make no conment on evidence but against my client ? The Bench: Defendant can make a statement.

Mr. Nelson requested the Bench to take a note saying he objected to the proceedings, as he was not allowed to address the Court iu answer to the informant’s case. He had a right to show them what kind of reliance yf-atf to placed upon the evidence of the prosecution. The Bench: You have a right to reply to evidence of the prosecution. , John M. Hutcheson deposed that he knew Mr. Fox for some time back, and he has borne a good character. I have sold to him wines and spirits several-times. The. , keg produced was mine. The this was not a question

of spirits, but for having apparatus for distilling. The Bench retired for an hour. On returning the Bench considered the case proved against defendant, but, being the first case under the Act, they would only inflict the lowest penalty—£so, Mr. Pitt: Or imprisonment. The Bench: No! The Court allowed fine or imprisonment; They will levy first, and if the defendant was obliged to be imprisoned, it will be with hard labor. A lengthy discussion took place with respect to the expenses of prosecution. ■Ultimately Mr, Nelson pointed out that the 153rd section of the Distillation Act, under which this case was brought, provided distinctly that, after deducting the expenses, the residue should be divided into three parts —one to go to the Consolidated Fund, one to the officers engaged in the seizure, and the remaining third to the informer.

The Bench fixed the fee of informant’s counsel at £3, which, with the other expenses, would be first deducted from the penalty. The penalty was immediately paid, and defendant set at liberty.

MONDAY, APRIL 12th, 1869. [Before S. L. Holler, Esq., R.M., and W. Douslin, Esq., J.P.] VAGEAXCT. James Gregory was charged under the Ist clause of Vagrant Act, and sentenced to one month’s imprisonment in Picton Gaol. . . ’ PAUL BEOS. V. EOBENSOX. Mr. Nelson, for plaintiff, urged that the charges made by the poundkeeper on behalf of the plaintiff was in excess of those allowed by the Act. E. Paul deposed that on Tuesday last he received information that 22 of his sheep had been impounded. On going there he found them them in the charge of one Henry Humphreys, as assistant poundkeeper during Mr. Shepherd’s absence. He told me James Robinson had impounded themj and the charges were £3 4s. Bd. to redeem them. He made it up thus :■ —10 sheep at 6d per mile, (for 7 miles), 355.; 12 sheep at 3d., 2 la.; trespass at 3d. each, ss. 6d.; and poundage, 3s. 2d. Believe the distance to be under 6 miles. Prom' Robinson’s house to Phillips’, miles; iand thence to the pound, miles—in all, below 6 miles. The sheep were safe on my own land the previous day. The poundage fees are right; the trespass came to ls. 9d.; the driving should only be £2 Bs. It appeared that he had charged special damages,; which he would have to prove. He. had - further charged for expenses in consulting his Tegal adviser, and for measuring the distances. By defendant: I.believe you made the charges; the poundkeeper told me so.i He might have said I should not pay the money till Shepherd came back, but do not remember doing so. Am sure the sheep were hot in 2 days. Do not know the length of your section, nor the distance. : i th» The Bench said if there was a dispute about the mileage it would be necessary, to get a competent surveyor to state the distances. ■■ iiitriiv.'S Diij’rfrn .

Defendant offered to he at the'expense, as lie was sure it was 7 miles. •: Henry Humphreys deposed that he was in charge of the pound at the time alleged. Remembered defendant impounding 22 sheep, which he said belonged to the plaintiff. He gave me the charges, and I charged Mr, Paul the same, which he paid me by a cheque for £3 4s. Bd. Charged him sd. too little for poundage. By defendant : You told me to charge 6d. per head for first 10, and Bd. for other 12.; asked you the amount and you told me. You did not leave it entirely iin my hands, nor did 1 say we would leave it till Shepherd came home, and he would correct it. You said those were the proper charges under the Acts. Defendant asked the Bench to.refer to clause 12, relative to overcharges by poundkeepers, under which the complaint was laid. The Chairman said the Act had reference only to trespass, and the impounding charges were not in dispute. ; ; Henry GK Clarke, chief-surveyor of Marlborough, produced the map of ■, the Wairau. Measuring the distance from the extreme end of defendant’s section to the Bush was 6 miles and 2 chains. uf u

James Kobinson, a farmer at Spring Creek, deposed that he charged. ss. 6d. for trespass because they were in 1 day and night, and' part of f next morning, u Sis mother saw them but could not drive, them out. Thought the Act allowed Sd.iper head. ■ • -> * i The Chairman pointed out thatvtfce schedule of the Act was very distinct,-arid only allowed id. per head. . V; i j.-.vn;u Judgment for plaintiff 3s. 9d., and costa £3 10s.