RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5444, 7 September 1878, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Pbiday, .September 6. (Before T. A. Hansford, Esq., R.M.) DRUNKENNESS, Au old offender, for being drunk in the public streets, was fined 205,, or in default 48 hours’ imprisonment. A DISORDERLY HOUSE. Madame Valentine, on remand, was charged with keeping a disreputable house. Mr. Gordon Allan, who appeared for the defendant, stated that the nuisance had been abated. t Sergeant Smith corroborated Mr. Allans statement, and added that he know the establishment had been broken up. His Worship dismissed the case. . OBSTRUCTING THE TRAMWAY. John Loughlin, a licensed cabman, was charged, on remand, with obstructing the tramway, on the night of the 29th ult., in Man-ners-street. Mr. Travers appeared for the Tramway Company, and Mr. Gordon Allan for the defendant. Mr. Travers, in opening the caso, said that it was not with the object of having the defendant punished, but merely to prevent a repetition of the offence, that the case was brought. Tho practice of cabmen allowing their vehicles to stand on tho tramway was a most dangerous one, and was calculated to endanger the lives of passengers both in tho trams and in the cabs. In this instance the cabman was expostulated with by the police, but refused to move his cab. Mr. Gordon Allan remarked that ha would like to see tho order for the construction of the tramway. Constable Waglaud deposed that on the 29th ult. he saw the defendant standing by his oab outside the Imperial Opera House in Manners-street. The cab was .on tho siding. One engine and] car were also on the siding, and one on the main line. Defendant refused to move when asked to. Witness took hold of the horse’s and led it away. Witness shifted the oab three times, but the defendant always brought it back again, and made use of threatening and offensive language. The hansom blocked the way of the tramcara to Newtown. Defendant had no fare at tho time, but he obtained one after the performance at the theatre was over. By Mr. Allan: The tramcara stood on the line about fifteen minutes. Did not request the tram-carriages to move on. There was not room enough for a cab to pass between the tramway line and the kerbing of the street. Mr. Jackson requested witness to order the cab off the line. Dr. Diver deposed that he remembered the night in queatiou. He saw the cab after it had been removed by the constable, aud did not think that the tram would have come in contact with it on its way to Newtown. He was one of the tramway directors. The sidings , opposite the Opera House had been laid down under the authority of the City Council. By Mr. Allan ; Never told the cabman that he (witness) was a J.P., and would have them removed. Mr. Allan said that under tho clause which the complainants relied it must be shown that there was wilful obstruction of a carriage that had a right to be on the line. He had searched and made inquiries, but could find no plan of the siding as being approved of. He would be quite astonished if authority had been granted for the laying down of the aiding, because there was possibly no room between the line of rails and the kerbing. This of course would prevent all vehicles—both private carriages and cabs—from drawing up opposite the theatre. Mr. Travers ; The theatre had been built after the siding was laid. Mr. Allan replied that the theatre was talked of a great deal at the time) aud it was generally understood that it was to have been built. He contended that the siding in question was not au authorised place for the tramway to stop. Lawrence McGovern,cab proprietor,deposed that he remembered the night in question. The tramway engine was pointing towards To Aro, and the one on the siding towards Thorudon. ,He considered from the position of tho oab that there was no obstruction. His Worship said the principal question to consider was as to how the engines were situated. There appeared to be no dispute as to the position of the cab. Mr. Travers said that he had just been told that the engine on the aiding was facing toward the Thorudon end of the town, in which case there could of course have been no obstruction. There must consequently have been some misunderstanding, and under the circumstances he would withdraw tho information. Mr. Allan otserved that the Tramway Company should pay the costs. His Worship thought that if the information was withdrawn it should be avith costs. Mr. Travers remarked that the information had been laid by the police, and therefore he could not see how the Tramway Company should be burdened with the costs. As regarded the right of cabmen drawing up opposite the theatre, no one disputed their right to do so so long as they conducted themselves with propriety. . Mr. Seivwright appeared for a cabman named Lawlor, who had been summoned for a similar offence. He thought that as the information had been withdrawn the complainant should pay the costs. His Worship said he would allow costs in both cases, and that the police would have to pay them. Mr. Allan remarked that, the Tramway Company would probably refund’ the amount of the costs to the police. There were several other informations, but they were all withdrawn. DAMAGING PROPERTY. John Brown was charged on the information of George Squires, of the Metropolitan Hotel, with wilfully damaging ten tumblers, valued at 10s. Complainant deposed that the defendant was engaged as waiter in the hotel. He had only been employed two days when he got drunk and caused annoyance and disturbance to those in the hotel. After creating the disturbance, he broke the glasses. His Worship dismissed the case, telling complainant that he should recover the loss of the tumblers by a civil action.