RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5641, 29 April 1879, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Monday, April 28, (Before T. A. Mansford, Esq., R.M.) DRUNKENNESS. Five inebriates were dealt with in the usual way. ILLEGALLY ON PREMISES. John Warringford was charged with being illegally on the premises of James Edwards, Tory-street, yesterday morning. Prisoner informed the police that he had nowhere to sleep. In answer to his Worship, prisoner said he was a sailor, but had done no work since the ship he belonged to had left the port. He was sent to gaol for 48 hours. OVERCROWDING THE S.S. TAtAROA, John Pietersen, master of the steamer Taiaroa, was charged that he had, on the 14th April, on board the said steamer a greater number of cabin or saloon passengers on a voyage from Picton to Wellington than the number of passengers allowed by the passenger certificate issued for the said steamship Taiaroa under authority of the Shipping and Seamen Act, 1877. Mr. McKellar conducted the prosecution. Captain Pietersen pleaded guilty, and was about being examined, when Mr. Bell came in Court, and said he appeared for the defendant. His Worship said that the witness had pleaded guilty. Mr. Bell said that he would withdraw the plea. The case was then proceeded with, as follows ; John Pietersen, master of the Taiaroa, in answer to the Collector of Customs, stated that he was allowed to carry 40 saloon and 32 forecabin passengers. The Collector of Customs said he was very sorry that his principal witness was absent. Mr. Bell admitted that there were more passengers on board than was authorised to be carried under tbe Act. His Worship observed the only question to decide was to assess the damages. The Collector pointed out that there were three clauses under which the penalties could bo assessed, viz,, “that section 196 of the Shipping and Seamen Act, 1877, provides that the owner or master shall be fined for carrying passengers in excess of the number allowed by the certificate, in a sum not exceeding £2O ; and also a sum not exceeding double the amount of the fares of ail the passengers in excess of the number authorised by the certificate.” Mr. Bell said that the action had been brought under the 196th section of the Act of 1877. He would ask his Worship to consider the surrounding circumstances in connection with the case. In the first place the steamer Taiaroa carried the mail. His Worship would therefore understand that steamers hurrying down the coast with the mails on board did not stop long at each port. On the passage in question the Taiaroa left the Manukau and called at Nelson and Picton. There was no doubt that she had a large number of passengers on board. The informant, if he might he allowed to call him so, was provided with a ticket. The steamer called at two ports, and, of course, as is generally the case, a large number of passengers were ready, waiting for the steamer, to go on board, many of whom had no tickets. Mr. Bel) then reminded his Worship that the Taiaroa called at these ports late at night, and it was absolutely impossible to prevent people from coming on board. He would also remind his Worship that the Union Steam Shipping Company had very lately lost two large steamers, and it was to tbe interest of the travelling public that so many were allowed on board. In fact, the public were to blame themselves. The company did all in their power to prevent the overcrowding of their boats, and had no desire to do so. Mr. 801 l again urged that the Taiaroa on the voyage in question was carrying the English mail, and consequently had to hurry from port to port at all speed, and that she always arrived late at night. The Collector said that he was instructed not to press for a heavy penalty.

His Worship said that there was no doubt an offence had been committed under the Act. He would, however, take into consideration the surrounding circumstances in connection with the case. He could not, however, coincide altogether with the remarks of Mr, Bell in regard to the company being unable to prevent so many passengers from going on board. There could be no doubt that the defendant had carried sixteen passengers in excess of the number allowed by law. According to the law, therefore, his Worship said that he would have to inflict two penalties. In the first place he would have to impose a fine for carrying too many passengers ; and in the second, he would have to be fined a certain sum per head for carrying an excess of passengers. The defendant would therefore be fined 40s. for carrying more than the proper number of passengers, and also Is. per head for each passenger carried in excess, making a total of £2 16s. and costs. CIVIL OASES. Judgment Summonses.—W. Black v. E. Scandlurge, claim £5 13s ; ordered to pay 10s. a week, the first payment to be made on the sth May. Golden Point Mining Company v. G. Wymond, claim £3O, for 100 shares. It was proved that the defendant was under age; judgment was given for the defendant, with costs.

In the following cases judgment was given for the plaintiffs :—Stone and Co. v. W. J. Roberts, claim £2 65., for goods sold and delivered. J. Thorburn v. C. Bath, claim £4, goods sold and delivered. W. Black v. C. McKirdy, claim £24 25., for work and labor done. A. Wakeford v. J. E. Dalton, claim £7 12s. 6d., for a promissory note. J. Ballinger v. J. M. Sommerfieid, claim £24 19s. 3d. Colonial Bank v. J. Back, claim £6B 4s. 9d. Captain Williams v. Captain Gibbons, claim £25 14s. 6d,, for coals supplied in connection with the ship Hyderabad. Mr. Ollivier appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Stafford for the defendant. The plaintiff stated in his evidence that Captain Gibbons ordered some coals to be transshipped in the Forest Queen to Otaki, for the steamer Glenelg. Captain Ross subsequently said that Captain Gibbons would be responsible for them. Mr. Stafford Contended that the plaintiff should be nonsuited, and stated that Captain Ross was known to be contractor for getting the ship Hyderabad off the Otaki beaoh. He had ordered coals from time to time from Captain Williams, and when he (Captain Williams) found that he could not get his money from Ross he summoned Captain Gibbons for it. From Captain Wil'iama’ own statement it was shown that if he (Williams) could not get his money from Ross he would try and get it from Gibbons. Mr. Ollivier submitted that there was no guarantee on the part of Gibbons to pay the amount. . His Worship thought there was a case to answer. Jas. H. Gibbons, the defendant, stated that there was an understanding that the coals were not to be booked to him, but to Ross. He never ordered a pound of coals from the plaintiff. He had known Captain Williams for the last 14 years. It was not until Captain Ross had cleared out that Captain Williams had asked witness for the price of the coal. Captain Williams bullied witness a good deal, and suggested that as the money would come out of the insurance company, he (witness) would not feel it, and might make it right. Witness said he would see him (Williams) hanged first, and told him to send in his account to Ross. Williams then said he would do so. Witness had no personal benefit from the coals. They were merely used by Ross in getting tho cargo out of the Hyderabad. Witness never received any particulars until he received the summons. Distinctly told Williams to keep his (witness’s) account from Ross’s.

This was all the evidence, and his Worship reserved judgment until Thursday.