RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4459, 5 July 1875, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Satcjuday, Jult 3. (Before J. O. Crawford, Esq., R.M.) STEALING PKOM A DWELLING. Robert Glover, comedian, pleaded not guilty to an information ■ charging him with having stolen a number of blankets and a quantity of babylinen, the property of Thomas S. Proudfoot. It was proved that prosecutor was staying at the Victoria Hotel, and on the 19 th ult, lost - the articles set forth in the. charge. Prisoner had access to the place in which the things were kept, and suspicion falling upon him, his house was searched, and the lost property found there. Prisoner denied any knowledge of the robbery. He might have taken them when in drink, but had he been sober he would not have committed such an act.- Sergeant Monaghan informed the Bench that prisoner had received two sentences in Auckland for similar offences. His Worship convicted prisoner, and sentenced him to six mouths’ imprisonment, with hard labor. DKUNK AND INCAPABLE. A drunkard was mulcted in the sum of 55., with the usual alternative of 48 hours’ imprisonment in default of payment. .ANOTHEK TOLLGATE INFORMATION. C. Thompson, proprietor of the Kaiwarrawarra tollgate, sued A.Voung, coach proprietor, for £4 2s. 6d. unpaid tolls. ' Mr. Travers for plaintiff ; Mr. Brandon for defendant. • - Plaintiff proved that the coach had passed through the gate upon several occasions, and that no toll had been, paid, though he had demanded payment. Mr. Brandon : It was a four-horse coach ? ■Witness : Yes. Mr. Brandon : With springs ? Witness : Yes. That was the plaintiff’s case. Mr. Brandon submitted that there was no claim made out. Section 3 of -the Tollgate Act Amendment Act, 1872, provided that, “ The tolls to be taken at every tollgate or bar now erected, or hereafter to be erected, within the province, except on the Wanganui Bridge, shall until the Ist day of May, 1873, be those stated in the first part of the schedule hereto, and on and after that date the tolls mentioned in the second part of the same schedule shall be charged for the vehicles and animals mentioned in the said second part in lieu of any tolls chargeable thereon under the said first part, and no tolls fixed hereby shall be altered save by Act of the Provincial Council, and all Acts of the Provincial Council relating to tolls shall be read, as if the said rates had been fixed thereby.” That section showed very clearly that until the date mentioned—the Ist May, 1873 —tolls should bo collected under the first part of the schedule, and that after that date the tolls should be taken under the second part of the schedule in lieu of under the first part, so that the first part after Ist of May was repealed and became virtually inoperative. They could not take tolls under it, and must rely upon the second part. Now, if they went to the second part of the schedule that was as follows :—“ Second part : For every four-wheeled vehicle drawn by four horses, 10s. For every additional horse drawing such vehicle, 55.” But this second schedule was

repealed by the Act of 1873 (No. 2). The preamble of that Act ran as follows : —“ Whereas it is by the third section of the Act of tho Superintendent and Provincial Council, session 22, No. 8, intituled An Act to Amend the Acts of the Superintendent and Provincial Council Relating to Tollgates, enacted that after Ist May, 1873, the tolls mentioned in the second part of the schedule to the said Act shall be charged for the vehicles and animals mentioned in the said Act, in lieu of any tolls charged thereon under the first part of the said schedule ; and whereas it is desirable to amend the second part of such schedule, be it therefore enacted,” &c. Now, the . second section of the Act-said, “ The second part of the schedule of the Act, session 22, No. 8, is hereby repealed, and in lieu of it the following shall be inserted, and shall be read as if it formed part of the said Act : —Second part ; Amount of tolls to be levied under the Act till the Ist day of November, 1873 : Por every four-wheeled vehicle without springs, drawn by four horses, 195.; for every additional horse drawing such vehicle, 55.” Then there was a third part added as follows :—“Amount of tolls to be levied on and after the Ist of November, 1873 : Por every four-wheeled vehicle without springs, drawn by three or more horses, 10s.” So that there was no toll chargeable except upon vehicles without springs. He therefore contended that inasmuch as the coach belonging to defendant was a vehicle with springs, he was not liable.

Mr. Travers said that certainly upon the first blush the argument of his learned friend was plausible, for the language of the Act was by no means satisfactory. Still, it could never have been intended that the Act should read as the learned gentleman had read it, and he (Mr. Travers) must submit a reading of it which his Honor would no doubt consider the more rational. He believed it was clear, on reading the Act of 1872, that the intention of the framers of the Act was this : that the tolls in their integrity, as sot forth in the first schedule, should he charged till the Ist May, but that after the Ist May a special rule of tolls should be fixed for vehicles without springs, and the rates on those special vehicles should be charged as set forth in the second schedule. It was never intended that after the Ist May tolls should be charged only on vehicles without springs. The reason this rule was specially fixed was because it was found that vehicles without springs, such as drays and waggons, carrying heavy weights, were cutting up the roads, and it w T as felt desirable to increase the tolls on tbem. The Act certainly had been loosely drawn, but the intention was clear, and he felt sure it w:\s owing to a mistake that the intention was not expressed more clearly. Por Instance, he believed the date had been transposed. by accident, probably by a printer’s error, and that the clause should read as follows : —“ The tolls to be taken at every tollgate or bar now erected, or hereafter to be erected, "within the province, except on the Wanganui Bridge, shall be those stated in the first part.of the schedule hereto, until the first day of May, and on and after that date the tolls mentioned in the second part of the "same schedule,” &c. It was never the intention to abolish all tolls throughout the province on all vehicles with springs. Mr. Brandon said whatever the intention was the Act was perfectly clear now, and no court could dispense with certain words in any Act, if suph words were operative in any way. Mr, Travers said he did not strike out any words, he merely transposed them. Mr. Crawford, in giving judgment, said it appeared to him that although the Acts were extremely carelessly drawn, yet the intention of the last Act was clearly shown by its repealing the second part of the schedule of the Act of 1872 and making provision for the tolls to be charged on the one particularly mentioned in the second clause. He would give judgment for the amount claimed, with costs. As the amount of the claim is under £5, defendant has not the right of appealing.