RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Manawatu Times, Volume III, Issue 82, 11 October 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tkttbsdat, Ootobbb 9 1879. [Before the Resident Magistrate: and J, T. Dalrympie, Esq.; j:p.] BBBAOH OF IHS, EAIWAY BY-LAW*. Harry Parkins (a Maori) was informed against by Constable Gillespie that he did on the 2j7th day of September last, unlawfully commit a breach of the New Zealand Railway Bye-laws (Clause 19) 1 y getting into a railway carriage, whilst the train was m motion. ' The accused pleaded "not guilty." Charles Dykes, deposed that he was ■ station-master, at Palmerston^ and gave evidence that he savf the accused get into a railway carriage while it was m motion. Both himself and the guard cautioned him not to enter the train, while it was moving, but he took "no notice but jumped o.n board.. The tram, was stopped three, times and three times he entered it, placing himself m fighting attitude when the guard tried to remove him. The train was moving at four miles an hour. To. the Prisoner.; I saw you lift your fist to strike the guard.' * From, the interpreted admission of the accused, he did not deny that the train was moving at the time he entered it. But he protested that he was like a blind bat, as the regulations of the Department were not printed, m Maori, a,nd he could not know them from inspiration. In fining the accused, the Chairman said that he hoped that m future the Railway authorities would proceed indiscriminately against those offending. He made no reflections -about the present case.'but spoke generally. Defendant would be fined £,l and co*ts. BBEAOg OP- THB. BOROUGH* BTB-X.AW-S. Robert Walker was charged upon information by Constable (tilletpie, for having committed a breach of the | Borough Bye-laws (clause 73) by challenging John Davy to fight. t j Accused admitted the offence* ex- J pressed sorrow for his trangression, and j was fined svs.5 v s. and ctsts, the Bench intiniatiug that should he make his appear-, i ance again, a heavy penalty would be inflicted. s , ■■:'■■• ' PBB^PATBTIb'HbBS*. Thomas Wray was . complamed for ajlp\£iug his hora^ to v^ande*

at large m the Public Square, contrarj to the Borough Bye-laws. defendant admitted the bffenca, and in "reply to the Chairman, said that he knew the gravity of the offence, ai he himself was a debenture 'holder and was aware of the expense that had been laid out upon" the Square. He had » good paddock and had^ gone to a lot of expense to secure his horse. As it was .the first time he had been before the Court, the mitigated penalty of 10s. and costs was imposed. . CIVIL CASES. John Prior v. .Robert Maekie.— Claim, £2 25., professional fee, claimed~for an adjournment. Plaintiff nonsuited with costs. " ..-■"'' E. Brightwell v. P. Maxwell.— Claim, £25, damages claimed for injury/done by trespassing cattle.; Mr . Staite appeared for plaintiff ; and Mr. Hawkins for defendaut. At the outset, counsel for thY defence took a preliminary' objection .pf , ; an insufficiency m the statement of par' ' ticulars. Both . ; counsel argued, the., point at great length, but the Bench' overruled the .objection. The case lasted for about four hours, and' nn % suited m a verdict for plaintiff for •!».*. v per head - trespass, amounting U £15 10s., and costs. W. S. Staite «; J. J. Murphy*— Claim, ;; £16 Bs. Mr; Maclean for plaintiff Mr. Hawkins Tor defendant. A set-off A was put mof £10 14s. 4d. A long discussion ensued as to the admissibility,,., n of the set-off , but was ultimately disallowed. Judgment for plaintiff, with, costs, amounting m all to £19 is. 10d» King Brothers v. Michael G-alrin.— ». !£5 10s. Id. .Judgment, m default. - •' ■ Fred. J. Taylor *. 6. H.Englet.—i i Claim, £3 75., for work and labor done. Judgment for 10s, and costs. Manawatu Highways Board v. J. E^ Nathan.— Claim, £10 13s. Bd., forrafceai; -y Judgment for 10s. 6dV, solicitor-! fee, the balance, having been paid, into Court. A • A, Same v. Barber Brothers,— Claim* £26 4s. Judgment ordered. Same v. T. Kennedy M i Donald.-n '■ Claim, £12. 'Order for solicitor's fees. t Same v. J. Whisker.— Claim, £16. ; Judgment by default. • : "■ i Egbert Mackie ». Kerei te Panau.— , Claim, £1 16s. ll'd. Judgment m aW* fault. I Bobert Mack\e «. Taylor Grey.— ■> [£6 16s. lOd. Judgment m default. ; S. Da wick v. A. W.Malcol^-rplaim^ a, I£B 16/ i. }od. Ordered to be imprisoned; | iiixdefault. :, ■" [ ...■'. COIJINS V. 80HLAGBB. [ This was a case the evidence m which, bad been taken upon the last Court dayy th,e judgment m which was reserved iv order that the R.M. should consult his; legal authorities upon a point of law> raised by M.rAHawkins. Before Ade^ liyering judgment, Mr. Ward announced; that fab t^ but stated that a\thoUgh he. had majde a rigid search amongst his text-books." for a decision bearing upon^ the-ca,se, he was unable to find one^ and was therefore compelled to confine* himself to the evidence, and keep strictly to the Act and particular section, A oi the Act under which the casa wa* ' brought. He thereupon delivered th<^ r following judgment :— " This is an in* ; ; formation lai,cl under the 4ts£ Section, 1 of ' The-Maliciou.s to Property.;' Act, 1867.'' The defendant i,s' charged ; * with unlawfully and maliciously kiting* three ducks, the .property of the informant, of the vaiueof thirty shillings., The main facts, as disclosed : ; by . . tlieC evidence, are not disputed^ iexcept ' that ' the defendant asserted he w,ajs authorised by the informant to kill the birdik . : This. CUq h\ttes denied. ■ The question lvhether he^was so authorised^ 'or not, ; \ does not, I think, materially affect this ■•> case.- The evidence shows that the in-, tformant was the possessor ofi; some i ducks. To the great annoyance of the [ defendant, they were m the habit ob trespa&sing upo^his^ section, w^hich ad- : ; joins , that of the infbrmant~ The defendant frequently asked the owner - to; , ' keep them away, and did what heA could to fence them out ; notwithstahdv; i ing which, they continued from time to, ; time to trespass, whereupon he told the ; '■ informant if he did not t;eep them out of his (the, defendant's^ 'section he would kill Jhem. They' again came on. tha defendant's premises, when he then) and there killed two of them with a l stick}- -He contends hi did so for th« purpose of getting" rid of the nuisance. Looking at the Section of ths Act, under which the information ». laid, I, finely before the defendant can be cpnvicted,^ the Court should be satisfied that tha' injury was done* - ' unlawfully and maY ; lioiously!' Now, although it is not necessary under this Act to prove actual malice against the owner, still, if the. Court is satisfied thaj no malice was intended or existed, it is bound to give, j the defendant the fullj benefit of sueh i » 4 r finding. I have considered, the -evif dencem this case, apdjhecircumstonces under which the bjrdiS were killed, arid s have, come to the conclusion that the. idefeudant did not do so from any. malice :oj ill-will aganis^ *ne owner ofthe birds, but rather by way of selfc defence. 'I. fail to see any difference between this case and that of a peraoni laying poisoned grain m his garden for. the purpose of destroying trespassing fowls, ' and "of which, due pptiee was' posted up, for m so doing; such a- person would, I. think, be justifiably pro- s tecting himself.;' In this case I hold, as "the defendant had given the owner. ample notice of his intention to desteoy . the birds if they continued to trespass, and as, the nuisance was not abated, he' was quite justified i^ killing thenj; I think, therefore, the information should b.e dismissed on its mcits." A ..:■■..'•!? Mr Hawkins said that ;the decision of the. Bench had taken, hira^ completely, by surprise— or rather the mode at which the decision had *bee& arrived at. At the. dole" of the casejon last Court day he had been led to hei lieye- that judgment had only been reserved upon . a point of law, and now !• the .Bench set that aside and gave a' verdict upon evidence. He by no; means wished to question the motives, from which the. decision had been giTei^ but -certainly the caurse.purs.ueipl|^fid, h,im at a great disadvantage.^ He had? prepared, himself for a dismissal upon a point of -law, and. hpd a writtten appeal to meet it, but the ground* upon which the case had been dismissed cop»pelled. him to take tirap t|o. consider. whatco.urs,e he would pursue. The Chairman md that the B^uch, woj^ld throw no obstacle m the wa^ ofan'appeal. Its only/wisiV Wftsjto arnv©, at right and justice, aud decide- ac<^Qr§^ 'j^AA'A^^'a. 'AA-j'y 'v..

Mr. Hawkins said* he was assured of that fact, thanked the Bench for its courtesy, and intimated that later on m the day he would stats ,, what course to pursue. / '* ' * The following case was Called on before Mr. Maclean, /who appeared for defendant, had time to make application for costs. At its close he did~so, Mr. Hawkins objected, and , the Bench upheld the objection as"'the course" would : be irregular, and refused the application.