RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4373, 26 March 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, March 25. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., R.M., and J. Moore, Esq., J.P.) THE DALLAM TOWER. —CHARGE OP ASSAULT AGAINST THE CAPTAIN. ■: 1. William Campbell, master of the ship Dallam Tower, was charged with having, on the12th January, assaulted James Page, passengers’ baker, by striking him, and causing him to be injured by soaldiug water. Mr. Gordon Allan appeared to prosecute,. Mr. Travers to defend. Mr. Travers raised the preliminary objection that the charge could not be proceeded with, as it had already fallen through for want of prosecution. Upon the day set down for the former hearing; Captain Campbell and his witnesses were in attendance, but the prosecutor . did not appear, and the charge to .all intents had been abandoned. Under these circumstances he would submit that no further prosecution could take place.

Mr. Allan ; Where is your authority for this opinion ? Mr. Travers : My authority is “Russell on Crimes.” My friend ought not to ask me to quote authorities upon mere elementary matters.

Mr. Allan ; And my friend ought not to quote authorities upon the Pythagorean doctrine of ipse dixit, for, as yet, we have nothing more than his ipso dixit. Mr. Travers made quotations from an old Act and from “Burns’ Justice," to show that thecase having been ouce disposed of could not be brought before the Court again. Mr. Allan contended that the captain should have applied to the magistrate, at the former hearing, for a certificate to bar further proceedings. Without tliia certificate, the form of which was prescribed in the Resident Magistrate's Act, and in “Johnston’s Justice of the Peace,” there was nothing to prevent the case being reopened.

Mr.- Travers said the certificate was issued to prevent proceedings being brought in any other court. It was preposterous to suppose that a magistrate would issue a second information in his own court in reference to a matter in respect to which he had already given a decision. He apprehended that where a summons was dismissed by a magistrate for want of prosecution, that that was a bar to further proceedings before the same magistrate for the same offence.

His Worship took a note of Sir. Travers' objection, and the case was proceeded with. Mr. Allan gave a short outline of the facts of the case, stating that on the 12th January the captain went to the galley, and in the essrcise of those powers of which he had already; informed the Court he was so amply possessed, seized Page by the neck, shook him, threw him. out, and caused him to be scalded by hot water in a manner that wonld be deposed to by ■ various witnesses. He was disrated, and then Captain Campbell threatened to tie him up and give him a good lashing. The case was one of spine importance, because it was right that captains should understand that they were not empowered to ill-use men in such a manner, and that they did so at their peril. James Page, 22, stated that he was baker on board tbe Dallam Tower. H a d a character as to ability, which was banded to Captain Ashby, the company’s agent. During the voyage the flour given to him was very bad, and although he tried his best he failed to make bread of the quality he wished to make it. On the 12th January he was in the galley when the’captain came and complained of the quality of the bread. Witness told him the flour was bad and that the bread was not satisfactory to himself. The captain then got hold of him by the back of tbe neck, threw him against a man carrying hot water, which scalded him. When witness got up he went into the galley, when the captain drew himself up and gave him a blow with his clenched list. The blow made his head very sore, and he was laid up for two weeks from the effects of the scald. After this he called witness up on the poop and said he would reduce liis wages to 10s. a month. On the day of the assault he said, “ I have not done witli you yet •, I shall tie you up and rope’s end you.” Shortly after the captain and doctor came up, and the captain said, “It’s only a cup of hot water gone on him.” A day or two ago, on Saturday morning, he called me on the poop, and said, “ Why have you got out a summons against me ' If you had not taken out a summons I should have given you your discharge. If you proceed, I shall take you back and make an ordinary seaman of you.” The scar of the scald still remained on his arm. [Scar exhibited.] Cross-examined by Sir. Travers : My business in the galley was to bake, but I was not baking, as I had not yeast enough. Captain Campbell did not tell witness to go out of the galley until after he scalded him. The first words were that tbe bread was bad, and that I was not fit to be baker. This information was not laid at tbe instance of Lewis. Witness got it up himself, and bad not yet paid for the information. Lewis had never, at any part of tbe voyage, incited witness to take proceedings against tbe captain. Was positive the captain

didn’t read the entry in the log stating that ■witness was disrated, and if the captain and mate said to the contrary they told lies. Was laid up for two weeks, unable to do any work. Did not pretend to be a seaman, as ho had never been on board a ship before ; therefore, any charge of want of ability under that head had no weight. There were not, to his knowledge, constant complaints as to the quality of the bread, although witness himself knew” that it was not first-class, simply for the reason that the flour was bad. . Charles Coombs, an immigrant, was in the galley on January 12, when the captain came in and took hold of Page by the back of the neck, and asked him about the quality of the bread Pa"e replied that he had done his best, and the captain began shaking him. Making no more ado, he pushed Page out, v/hen he came into contact with a man who was carrying two quart pots full of hot water. When he got up he went towards the galley. The captain then drew himself together and struck Page. The captain and doctor afterwards came to see him, and both said that he would be well in a day or two. Cross-examined by Mr. Travers : ‘When Pane "ot up be went towards the galley, when the captain clenched his fist and knocked him down. Was not a friend of Lewis. The first he heard of the case was wheu Page said he would want him to come up as a witness. Had tasted worse bread than that made by Page. Mr. Travers : Where ?

Witness : On land. (Laughter.) James ICilt, an immigrant, corroborated the evidence given as to the push, the scald, the blow, and the threat of Captain Campbell to tie Page up and lash him. Cross-examined by Mr. Travers : Could not say whether the hot water was in Page’s hand or someone else’s, and didn’t stop to inquire, as Captain Campbell is a man of very hasty temper, and witness didn’t want to come into contact with him at all.

George Stead, passengers’ cook, gave similar evidence, stating that the blow given by Captain Campbell was of such severity that it made Page cry. Cross-examined by Mi - . Travers ; The captain did not tell Page to go out of the galley, that he had no business there. "When -Page returned to the galley the captain struck him a direct blow. The effect of the push was to send him right against the side of the ship. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr. Travers, for the defence, said he would prove that Page was in the galley after being disrated ; that he was disrated for incompetency as a baker, and because the passengers would not eat his bread on account of the filthy dirty state in which he was constantly found. The captain did not dispute the statement of the witness Kilt, which was truthful in all its parts. He (Mr. Travers) was not there to justify Captain Campbell’s conduct toward Ornsen and the other men, but he submitted that the circumstances justified him in ejecting Page from the galley. No<doubt the blow was hastily given, but it was given under such circumstances that he felt sure the Court would be convinced that Captain Campbell did not deserve to be treated with any degree of severity. W. H. Hoskiug, surgeon of the Dallam Tower, said that Page acted as baker for some time during the voyage, but the quality of the tread baked by him. was so bad that it was unfit for use. The loaves were sometimes so hard that they were like bricks. Several of them were nailed up by the passengers as mementoes of Page’s reign as baker. In habits Page was extremely filthy. He was always dreadfully dirty until he was scrubbed down. Mr. Travers : Who scrubbed him down ? Dr. Hosking ; He did it himself. In fact, he was becoming aware that the passengers had a tender regard for him. (Laughter.) Mr. Travers : Then the pressure of public opinion had a good effect. Dr. Hosking ; Oh, yes. He’s a perfect gentleman now to what he was. (Laughter.) Mr. Travers: And do you consider him clean now ? Dr. Hosking : Well, no. I should scarcely call him clean. Mr. Travers : Then he’s relapsing into his former condition. Well, what was the result of all this ? Dr. Hosking; Upon my representations the captain disrated him. I told the captain the passengers would not put up with Mm any longer. As a matter of fact they threatened to throw him over.

Mr. Travers: But that, I suppose, was metaphor. You mean they threatened to throw him over as a baker. (Laughter.) Dr. Hosking : Wei!, I don’t know ; I think they rather meant it the other way. Cross-examined by Mr. Allan : I have been five times surgeon of a ship, but X don't know how many times Captain Campbell has been captain. The bread was sour ; there was no doubt about that, but the flour used was of inferior quality. It was what is known as “ seconds j” still, good bread was made from it after Page was disrated. A sample of the flour was given to the cook, and. he made good bread from it. The same flour was used for the saloon until my stores were got up, and then I and the captain and officers had a better quality of flour. It is generally supposed that nothing but first-class flour is put on board for the use of the passengers. Page said the bread was sour on account of the yeast being bad, and the galley being unsuited for baking. We gave him repeated trials, but, he didn’t improve, and we put another man in his place. We had to complain more of the second man’s temper than of his bread. He - was a Gibraltar man, and very irritable. _ Page had no temper. I took no part in getting up a testimonial to the captain. There was some talk"of getting up a testimonial to me, but I declined’it, as I don’t believe in testimonial. They’re all bosh. Re-examined by Mr. Travers : The same flour used by Page was afterwards used for all the passengers, including ourselves, for some time. The only fault we had to find with it then was that it was dark in color. The flour was passed as good flour, fit, of course, for use by the passengers. Joseph Blackstone, an immigrant, said that Page made the worst bread he ever saw. The Gibraltar man made “ middling” bread. They could, eat it, but they could not eat Page s. The passenger’s said that if Page was not kicked out, they would kick him out. > Cross-examined by Mr. Allan : Was doctor s assistant on board, and found the captain and' the doctor very good men. They were not doves, neither were they sour, like the bread. Didn’t know that they were very irascible men. The flour served out was good enough. It made good soda cakes, and witness himself made good bread from it. Witness was one of those who signed the testimonial to the captain, which originated amongst the ladies in the cabin. Didn’t see a testimonial against the captain. Heard that one or two discontented persons had tried to get up a testimonial against him, but had no idea what had become of ifc< Considered the c-iptaiii worthy of a testimonial, and therefore had no objection to sign it. There were about 250 passengers on hoard, but he could not explain why so few of them signed the testimonial. James Anderson, chief officer, stated that Captain Campbell’s conduct was good towards the men. They always had full and plenty, and got more than they signed for. There were many complaints about the bread, and Page was disrated, the entry in the log to that effect being read over to him in the cabin. _ Cross-examined by Mr. Allan : I ho captain was not unkind to the men. He shackled Omsen down to the deck, and several others ; but there was cause for it. Captain Campbell had been in charge of a ship onco before the present voyage. The entry as to the disrating was read after the occurrence between Page and the captain. Dr. Hosking was recalled to depose to effects of the scald upon Page s arm. The epidermis was raised, and it vesicated through neglect. It would have got well in a few days, but Page allowed the dressings to stick to his shirt, and the arm was bad for a fortnight. Jacob Robb, a passenger who had sailed several voyages to the colony, and had boon five years warder in the Nelson gaol, believed the captain to ho a thoroughly competent man, and considered the officers to ho thorough gentlemen. Had heard of disputes between the captain and crow, but did not take any particular notice of these disputes. Was not

present at them, and therefore could say nothing about them. Cross-examined by Mr. Allan ; Was not under the command of the captain or officers, and had experienced no hardship or received any favors from them. Signed the testimonial because he believed in the competency of the captain. John Jeffrey, an immigrant, said he had taken no notice of the conduct of the captain or officers. He had no opportunity of observing their conduct, and could say nothing of their capacity. Witness was one of those who signed the testimonial, because the captain had been very good to the passengers, whatever be might have been to the crew. Page’s bread was so bad that they couldn’t eat it. They could eat the other baker’s bread, although it was not the best he had ever eaten. Witness was one who got up the testimonial, to the captain, but knew nothing of a testimonial against him. Mr. Travers, in addressing the Bench, said a good deal of the evidence had not gone to the point of the dqfeuce, but bis Worship would see that there were circumstances connected with the voyage of the Dallam Tower which justified him in bringing before the Court evidence as to the general conduct of the captain and officers towards the crew. Articles had appeared in the newspapers of a nature adverse to Captain Campbell, and he deemed it right that he should, on an occasion like the present, offer some justification of his conduct. The Court was now in possession of the evidence as to Captain Campbell’s conduct, aud his justification would of course go for what it was worth. In regard to the present case, the Bench could come to no other conclusion than that the prosecutor was utterly and miserably incompetent to perform the duties of baker. Complaints were made, the captain disrated him, and when the entries were read over to him he had nothing to say. After this the captain found him in the galley, and ordered him out. Page refused to go, aud the captain pushed Mm. It was perfectly true that in going out of the galley he came in contact with a man carrying hot water, but the scald was not of a serious character, and as to the blow it was, as tho witness Kilt correctly described it, a back-handed blow. He would not say that Captain Campbell was justified in striking the man. - A captain of a ship had other powers, which Captain Campbell might have used, but the facts of the case showed that Page was perfectly useless and incompetent ; that he was a dirty, filthy pig, whom the passengers would not tolerate ; and that Captain Campbell had acted entirely in the interests of the passengers. Under all the circumstances, the Bench would be quite justified in dismissing the case, as it was not of that aggravated character which at the first blush it appeared to be. Sir. Allan said lie had not much to say upon the case, as the Bench must have seen that the assault was perfectly unjustifiable. It was uucontradicteu that Page had taken a good character on hoard with him. It was admitted that the flour was not of first-rate quality, and that there was other flour on board, which was afterwards used for the saloon. Complaints were made, no doubt, as to Page’s baking, but was there any insolence on his part when remonstrated with ? Page said, “ I have done the best I can ; I can do no more.” Then what followed. There was a difference between civil aud nautical time, which rendered it difficult to say whether Page was disrated on the 12th or the 13th, but, at any rate, it was clear that Page had a right to be in the galley when the captain ordered him out. What right had the captain to say he had a good mind to tie Page up and rope’s-end him ? That in itself was tantamount to an assault. He then caught Page by the throat and threw him out of the galley with such violence that he struck against the side of the ship. And this was the mild conduct which the gentlemen on the Bench were asked to overlook, to laugh at, to dismiss from their thoughts. On the contrary, he trusted the Bench would mark its sense of such conduct in an unmistakeable manner. Then he struck Page again when he tried to get into the galley, and they had the clue to the whole of the trouble in the statement of the witness Kilt—whose evidence was accepted by Captain Campbell as being truthful throughout. Kilt let out the important fact that he was so afraid of the captain’s temper that he did not wish to remain to see what took place. Another witness said he saw Page crying from the severity of the blow. The case for the prosecution had been clearly made out, and lie would confideutly leave it in the hands' of the Bench. Mr. Crawford said the Bench were of opinion that a common assault had been committed, but that it was an assault of a frivolous nature. The captain, no doubt, was constantly irritated by the constant complaints about Page being a dirty baker, which appeared to have aggravated everybody on board the ship. The defendant, however,'appeared to have acted somewhat hastily in the matter, and had rendered himself amenable to the law by committing the assault complained of. As he had saiel, the assault was of a frivolous nature, and the Bench had concluded to dismiss the case with a caution, defendant to pay costs. OBTAINING MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENCES. Dennis Wright, late captain in her Majesty’s 107th Regiment of Foot, was charged with obtaining from Ebenezer Henry Hunt, on the 9th June last, the sum of £2B 14s. on false pretences. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr. Travers, who appeared to prosecute, called the following evidence : E. H. Hunt, boot and shoe importer, stated that on the 9th June last prisoner came to his place and produced two letters, which he represented to be official letters from the Horse Guards. He read them, and said_ he was entitled to receive half-pay in Wellington to the amount of about £l3O a year. He said that on the Ist July he would receive a certain sum of money on it, and that -if I would make an advance upon it, he would give me an order to receive the money. He produced an official form, which I believe was not then filled up, and he said that if I presented that form at the Treasury on the Ist July, I should be entitled to receive Ms half-pay. Believing that statement to be true, I consented to advance him money, he having told me I would be the only person entitled to receive it. He did not say at the time that he, also, could receive the money. Had he said so I should have refused to make the advance. I received from prisoner a receipt for the* money advanced. [Receipt produced.] On the Ist July the order was presented on my behalf by Mr. Pilmer, but on the 30th June I received a letter from prisoner, that it was the money for the October quarter for which he had intended giving me an order. He regretted the mistake, but hoped it would not inconvenience me. He also mentioned that as I had charged him twelve months’ interest he didn’t think ho should be compelled to pay. On the 2nd June he came to my office and assured me that he had made a mistake, that tho pay was not duo till the Ist October, and he then gave me another order, which was accompanied by a letter, in which he stated that he knew I could prosecute, but begged me for God’s sake not to ruin Mm, as he was on the point of getting married. I afterwards learnt that he had presented an order on the Ist July and received the money himself. X next received a letter from Mm from Wanganui, stating that illness and other expenses had put him on his beam-ends, and that he would give me an order for his coming pay which would cover all he owed me. X have since become aware that he has given other orders for the same money.

Cross-examinee! by prisoner : On the 2nd July you called at my office to explain matters, and - gave me another order to draw the quarter’s pay due on October 1. Interest to the amount of £Z was charged, upon your own suggestion. It was not a year’s interest; it was to represent interest on the money to be paid on the Ist October. I was to charge interest at the rate of 10 per cent, upon the first order, which would amount to £l. The amount was altered at your suggestion. W. Best, cashier in the General Government Treasury office, stated that the order produced was used in the Treasury to authorise the receipt of moneys vicariously. The Treasury officers disregard the form if the money is applied for by the person himself before the

presentation of the order; and on the Ist July, the money due to Captain Wright was paid to Mm personally. The money payable on the Ist October was paid in Wanganui, I e believed, to Captain Wright himself. The order produced does not give to the holder the exclusive right to receive the money. A. A. G. Pilmer deposed to presenting, at the Treasury, the order given by Wright to Hunt, and to the fact that it was not paid. The Prisoner, who said he had nothing to say, was then committed for trial. Bail allowed in the sum of £2OO, aud two sureties in the sum of £IOO each.