RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5662, 23 May 1879, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tubus day, Mat 22. (Before T. A. Mansford, Esq., R.M.) DBUNKESNB-S, Three inebriates were dealt with in the usual way for drunkenness. gleich's case. Frederick Gleioh was again charged with fraudulent bankruptcy in Adelaida. Mr. Bell appeared to prosecute. Mr. Gordon Allan, who defended accused, asked under what Act Mr. Bell relied ? Mr. Bell replied under the Foreign Offenders Act, 1863, and the Fraudulent Debtors Act, 1878, and asked leave to make a technical amendment to the warrant.

Mr. Allan objected to this, and submitted that under the Acts quoted by Mr. Bell his Worship , could not commit the accused, and hoped that the question would, be settled by the Supreme Court. His Worship observed that the evidence before him was quite sufficient to justify him in committing the accused had the offence been committed here, therefore he would have to go to gaol pending the arrival of the Governor’s warrant for his removal to Adelaide.

Mr. Allan said he intended to apply at the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus at once. CIVIL CASES. His Worship gave judgment as follows in the case of Stiidsburg v. Fisk : —The refusal’ of the plaintiff to. obey the order given by the defendant, was not sufficient to ensure a conviction under the Shipping and Seamen Act. Such an order must be a lawful one,, and the refusal to obey it wilful. Ido not think the order in this instance was of such a nature as to render the refusal to obey it wilful. The seamen had been at work all day, and at eight o’clock at night, after they had turned in, the ship being at anchor, the men were ordered to tow a punt, then lying alongside, and moor her at the place where she was usually moored some distance off. The men naturally wished "to know whether such work was necessary at that time of night, and on being referred by the mate (who expressed no opinion on the matter, simply remarking that was the order he had received) to the master, they were told" it was that or the boulder bank.” The men, without any further request being made them, returned to the forecastle, and the defendant, with’ the assistance of his mate, moored the punt themselves. The following day the men’s food was stopped, and the day after, which was the 30th of April, the men were turned adrift without food and without money, although one month’s wages were then due. The defendant had no right to take the law into his own hands. If he were unable to take proceedings against them where he was, his proper course would have been to bring them to, Wellington and lay informations against them for refusal of duty. His conduct was of too arbitrary and harsh a chaarcter, even supposing he intended to proceed to sea the same night, which I think is extremely doubtful. The plaintiff is clearly entitled to recover the one month’s wages due on the 30th April, and for damages sustained through wrongful dismissal I award him the sum of £6. Judgment for plaintiff, £l4 and costs. (Before Dr. Diver and Mr. J. Holdsworth, J.Fs.) In the following cases judgment was given to the plaintiffs : —Baker Brothers v. W. Parker, claim £2 2s. 6d.; Williams v. Brandon, claim £6 2s. 6d ; Laery and Campbell, v. O. Lord, claim, £1 17s. 6d. Judgment for 18s. 6d.