RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Volume 2, Issue 2, 15 May 1863, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Present— Bcfove M. Price, Esq., R.M., J. N. Watt, Esq., R.M. ; and T. Ileales, Esq., J.P.

Tuesday, 12tii May

SrcTtrorrs Crrx-Rnr.s aPtAtnst the Oaptat?t op ax TCsirfiRANT Snip — Captain 0. Biakev, master of the passenger ship, Sir "William Eyre, was charged on (lip information ofOnptnin A. J. "Ellos, GovernmenfEmigrntion Officer for Southland, with various breaches of tlie Passf'n.jer Act, October. 1855, 11 and 12 Vie. cap. 42. This indictment comprehended no less than nine serious charges of offences against various sections of the Emigration Act. each a pr>nal one: of these, however, only three worn adjudged by the Court to be clearly proved. Five others were withdrawn by prosecutor, and one adjourned to Monday nest. Mr. Russell appeared for the prosecution ; Mr. ITnrvev fur defendant. I First charge, under Section 20 of the Act — I "By reason of the beams and decks of the said vessel during the said voyage not being constructed as required by the said Act." Mr. Russell oened the Case by stating 1 that the present proceedings were instituted against the master of the Sir William Eyre for various offences against the Passenger Act. It was necessary for the protection of emigrants to New Zealand that action should be taken in the matter. The charges had been preferred against the master as the most responsible peison, and the only party against whom it. was possible to bring an action here; hut not thevebv necessarily implying that any personal criminality was to Vie attributed to him. The Court observed that in separate informations on a pen.il indictment, it would he necessary to prove the different charges for each case separately. Mr. ■Russell stated, that in this case it would be shown that the flooring-boards were so placed between decks as to cause an unhealthy atmosphere in the immediate vicinity of the berths in. the steerage. Robert Syme deposed that he had been a steer-age-passenger on hoard the Sir William Eyre ; the boards of the flooring in the sleeping department were not close together, there were fissures between them allowing unpleasant smells to come up from the hold, where there were slush barrels and broken cnrgo t By Mr. Harvey. — Spoke to the doctor, but never to the captain: Andrew Craig deposed that the flooring in question was composed of boards packed up on each other to the thickness of about ]8 inches. Was perfectly certain that the boards were not fastened to any beimt. Mr. Russell proceeded to call the names of other passengers in the same ve?sel, but none of them j appearing, his Worship inquired if they hud been j subpoenaed ? and. being answered in the negative, j said it was not obligatory for them to attend un- j less they were subpoenaed; and it was very irregular to call their names in that case. This was a penal indictment, in which it was necessary i to be very particular. Considerable delay "having arisen from the non-at f endance of witnesses expected to he present, at length Dr. J. B. Riley deposed : That he was a member of the "Royal Col- J lege of Surgeons, and surgeon in the Sir William ' Eyre, during the voyage in question. Observed that there were considerable openings between the boards of the flooring between decks, so as to allow water or any other liquids to fall through and remain in the hold, thereby causing an unhealthy atmosphere. By the Court: Could not say if the boards were fastened to any beams beneath, but on walking over them they would shift a little. Wns not much acquainted with nautical matters, or the proper construction of ships. Mr. Harvey thought it unnecessary to go into the case, as it Lad completely failed in proving the faulty construction alleged ia the indictment. The Court considered this charge not proven. 2nd charge, under section 24, — "Want of space for th c hospital." Capt. A. J. Elles deposed : That fee was Emigration Officer for Southland. Visited the Sir William Eyre about a week after her arrival. Inspected the Hospital, and superintended the measurement thereof. There were two hospitals, measuring 55 square feet, and 32 square feet respectively: total 87 square feet for the accommodation of above 350 individuals, for whom the Act requires 140 square feet. Could not see any beds or bedding provided in the Hospital— nothing but the bare boards for invalids. By Mr Harvey — Madenoinquiries as to whether the bedding had been removed, previous to this inspection. By the Court — The total number of passengers was nearly 400. James Ferguson, a steerage passenger, corroborated the last witness; saw the hospitals measured ; their dimensions were 5 feet 2 inches by 5 feet 5 inches, and 9 feefc by 5 feet 6 inches, as near as he could recollect. By Defendant — Did not know of any hospi tal bedding being thrown overboard after some fever cases , in order to prevent their contagious influence. William Lind, another passenger, deposed that

he measured the hospitals and made a memorandum of their dimensions at the time, which were 37 feet 9 inches and 39 feet 6 inches. Saw no bedainw provided ;, in one instance r took a bed there for an invalid friend.

By Defendants-Had some fever cases on board, but did riot observe any hospital bedding thrown away after the fever. Pr.Eiley deposed — That bedding was provided at first, but afterwards disappeared in some unknown way j was supposed to have been stolen. By the Court — There was only one indispensible utensil supplied. The bedding disappeared from the hospital in the fore-hatch ; beds remained in the aft hospital till the end of the voyage* Spoke several times to the captain about it, but could get none for the fore hospital.

Mr Harvey contended that with respect to the bedding, it had appeared in evidence that it was supplied at first, but eases of fever occurring, it had been thrown overboard to prevent infection, and then passengers preferred using their own. With regard to room, there was no great deficiency, aDd captains -were not bound by the Act to literal superficial measurement. The Emigration Officer at Glasgow had granted certificates before clearance and departure of the ship to the Captain, which proved that things were to his satisfaction. Applied to have this case dismissed or the lightest penalty imposed as no intentional neglect had been proved on defendant's part. His Worship was of opinion that the case was proved, (according to the intenton of the Act). Judgment deferred. THIED lIfFOEJIATION, under Section 25, for not having on board the number of water closets required in proportion to the number of passengers. James Ferguson deposed that there ■were only four water closets for the steerage passengers, two of which were double-seated, but with no partition. Dr Rilev confirmed the last witness, and further deposed that there was one in the cabin and another in the intermediate. By Defendant — Think there was one public water closet under the poop deck, and two private ones, but not certain. By Court — Those in the after part were reserved for the use of iemales and children exclusively. . Capt. A. J. EHes deposed that before going on deck at all he was struck with the insufficient number of water closets, being only four on deck ; two on each side of the fore hatch for males, and two near the aft hatch marked for females. Asked if that was all the accommodation for female passengers, — scarcely believed it possible; however, searched the intermediate and found none there and none in the poop. There should have been about twelve at least, if proportioned to the number of passengers, as required by the Act. By Defendant— Two are required if only one passenger is on board, and two more for every additional hundred. William Lind corroborated the preceding evidence, and also deposed that at first there were three water closets forward ; one was broken down and never rebuilt. Of the two remaining there was often only one in use through want. of repairs. By Defendant — They were all regularly cleaned by the crew t -vice a day. Counsel for the defence said, with vesrard to this i clause, he was not in a position to take the evidence of the master, but had to statn in His behalf, whatever it went for, that there were three others under the poop-deck in addition to those on deck, counting the double-seated ones as two single ones, together with one that was there at first but broken down, and the carpenter hart not time to replace ; the deficiency, if any, was only slight. Of these, two were always reserved exclusively for females and children, and they were always regularly cleaned twice a day. At any rate, it, appeared by the certificate granted at the port of clearance, that the arrangements at departure were to the satisfaction of the emigration officer there. | The Court 6aid they had heard a great deal about the certificate ot the emigration officer at the port of clearance, of whatever value that might be to prove the satisfaction of that officer, it was no legal weight, not being produced in Court. There appeared to have been a very disgraceful state of things on board the ship. It would be a monstrous thing for the Court to allow that because two of the water-closets were double-seated, that, therefore, they were equal to four separate water-closets. It was monstrous to adduce such a defence in this case. It appeared to His Worship, who also expressed the opinion of his brother Magistrates, that a very disgraceful state of things ■s'ith regard to water-closets, had existed, there being only four, when there should have been ten. Proven: judgment deferred till close. Fourth information, under section 26 — " No adequate and proper ventilating apparatus on board." W. Lin.l, J. Ferguson, J. Shaw, and "Dr. Rile.v all agreed in deposing (hat the only provision made for ventilation was winrlsails down two hatches; a third hatch was entirely closed with cargo. Free circulation of the air was also impeded below by the cargo, and there constantly was a very unwholesome and unpleasant smell below. Captain Elles deposed that he was struck with the v.tv close and unpleasant smell; could see no ventilation except down the hatchway.s. Called the mate and asked him if there were no other means; heansweivd, none. Went down into the single women's apartment, it was comp'etely dark unless a candle was lit. The only means of ventilation there was n small opening on deck, which had to be closed when the decks were washed..and partially at other times as it disclosed a view of the beds below.

Mr. Harvey applied for adjournment in order to obtain the certificate at the port of clearance, which, he contended, would prove the state of the vessel at that time to be satisfactory to the emigration officer. The Court were unanimously of opinion that the evidence Mr. Harve - wislmd to adduce could in no way exculpate defendant from the present charge. Mr. Harvey, in defence, stated that the only meins of ventilation at the disposal of the captain, which were windsails, had always been in use; and defendant could not be blamed, if, under the tropics, there was no wind and they had no effect. The arrangements which had satisfied the home agent had not been altered during the voyage. The Court were of opinion that the evidence of Captain Elles was so clear and distinct that there could exist no doubt in their minds on the matter. Especially as regarded that portion of the ship set apart for tbe single women, his evidence had revealed a scandalous state of things. There was no light without lighting a candle cr opening a place which would discover, to any person looking down, the passengers in bed ; and even this opening was entirely closed during the washing of the decks. The certificates referred to by Mr. Harvey, even if produced, could be of no avail in exculpating the defendant from responsibility during the voyage subsequent to its being made out. The Court were of opinion that this charge was very clearly proven. Fifth information, under section 35, " of not issuing sufficient water and provisions as required by the dietary 6cale." Information withdrawn.

Sixth information, under section 36 — " issuing provisions not properly cooked." Withdrawn. « Seventh information, under section 43— '' No medicines or medical comforts placed under charge of the surgeon." Dr. Riley deposed that medicines had been supplied in sufficient quantity ; but medical comforts were wanting during a great part of the voyage, especially sago and arrowroot. Had applied to the captain for them, to no purpose. Believed that the number of infant deaths was chiefly to be attributed to this cause. Defendant always referred witness to the mate, who said things had been so stowed away, that they could not get at them. Medicines had to be got from the purser. Were not placed under the doctor's charge. Stimulants were also wanting. Mr. Harvey applied for a remand, to produce the nurser. Remanded to Monday. Eighth information, under section 61 — "Not keeping in a public place abstracts of the Emigration Act and Regulations, for public inspection in two particular places." This charge was dismissed., the evidence being conflicting. The Court remarking on the irregularity of not having the witness subpcanaed. Ninth information, under section 62 — " Causing spirits and strong liquors to be sold to passengers." This charge wns also dismissed, the witnesses disagreeing in their evidence. The Court remarking that so serious a charge should not have been laid, without better proof to substantiate it. The Court adjourned for ten minutes, to consider those cases that had been proven, and then delivered judgment as follows: — The first charge, of want of sufficient space for the hospital, it was very clearly proved there was a deficiency of at least two-thirds required. Fined in the full penalty of £20, or in default, three months' imprisonment. In the second charge, of want of irater-

_■ closets, it was very; clearly prpved.4 : Ah £50, or three months' imprisonment:' , : Ittthe third charge, of warit of pro»er lation, the. Court^observed ithat whateve, renoe of opinion' imight arise with' tee, what was sufficient ventilation^ there cm no doubt that the case was;: distinctly pro the evidence of Captain Elles: '■'■■ -Takis wholeiease into consideration, here was! number of emigrants leaving home expect certain things on board emieratib sels. When once on boardf they find selves entirely at the mercy of -whoeve charge; and even when they discover m they must patiently endure'it all to the the voyage. And who can conceive the a of misery and suffering thai these poor may nave inflicted upon them? Whe, arnve here, it is our duty to redress grievances. In this vessel gross necle< certainly been proved on the part of the dant. No consideration had in any wa shown even to the females and childr. grievances of this kind were l allowed to condemnation, it would have a most dar effect on the interests of immigration Province This ease was fully proven. £00, or three months' imprisonment With regard to the case of deficient n comforts, it stood remanded till Mondy defendant was allowed to find bail in j his appearance The costs in these were Them.— John Williams pleaded eui stealing a blanket value 95., the property o< Geottan, on the 9thinst. Defendant said that drunkenness was tii of this, his first ottence; had been 12 year colony. One month's hard labor. - ' James Carey, for a similar offence wrf sentence. ft Francis Henry Lee was charged with co ing lnmself so as to provoke a breach of th last night. Constable M'Lean and the lord of the Albion Hotel, proved the chart Fined 405., in default, seven days' in men*. J "Wednesday, 13th Mat. John Lee Johri3tone, charged -with 6 a piece of timber, the property of Gravel. Mr Harvey for the defendant Joseph Smith was charged with assa Constable M'Lean in the execution duty. One month's hard labor. Thursday, 14th May. Theft.— Peter Dempster, charge; stealingblanketsfromatent. Remai Monday. Drunkenness. — John Jackson wa 20s. for being drunk. cmx case. Pearson v. Low.— Claim for breach tract in lease of property. Damag at £20. Mr South appeared for j Mr Harvey for defendant. W. H. Pearson deposed that he saw dant on 15th January, 1863, at the Pi Wales Hotel, about the middle of t! > Entered into conversation with him n previously acquainted. Defendant J that he could get no land on lease, j told defendant he could accommodate '" allowed a little time to go |" office, and write the terms. "J writing there the defendant c in. Witness promised to mcc ,-.. with the terms at the Prince of Wi about an hour. The document prod Court was the original agreement inqi a William Livesey deposed : Saw the ) dant sign the agreement produced!* present as a witness at the time. ColL state the date exactly. Was serving J bar, when plaintiff called him awaj H purpose of witnessing the transacts n W. H. Pearson re-examined, depa j s defendant read over the agreement >i nlaintiff drew his attention to the plai back of it, which showed a right >t through the land in question. Im; i him that it added to the value of tl i defendant, after some hesitation, a» take it on the terms proposed, but 1£ wish that the matter should be ' arranged till he had consulted his p ai who were then at Kingston. On jj. refusing to keep the sections open, de at last agreed to take it on his owns irrespective of his partners. All t& ' s pened before his signing the agreemaja lease was to be for 40 years, at his c?!^ for the yearly rent of L 225. He nil ■, signed an agreement, put it into hisl book, and said he was going to Rive* then shook hands upon it, which lit tinderstood to be the Scottish cuL clenching a bargain. But prefe r ring at' gunrantee to this interesting custom, | said he would get the lease dra\w nt once by Messrs. Macdonald and lei Saw defendant next day still in town g him for the agreement, and added : words thereto. At his request, agre . the term of lease should be 40 insfe ' s< years. After some discussion, it wa s that it should date from Ist Februar ifo defendant agreed to be in town to ij. lease, and to pay the first quartej vance. Received on 7th February, r * from defendant, dated 16th Januafinj Riverton, requesting plaintiff not tol fc with the lease till defendant had c s his partners. Replied to the effect was already too late. Received anofl '» dated Ist February, introducing II ids gregor as his partner Plaintiff er matter in the hands of the solicitor, _ plying and sending a deed of tl Received another letter, dated 7th I tt objecting to various clauses m the I ou repudiating tbe contract. Paid fou jgf to Mr. Macdonald for the deed of! Jn Estimate the damage from term < , ment till the repudiation of the coi ea about LI B. >rr By Mr. Harvey : Never altered uc ginal agreement. There were no \\— forbidding sub-letting in it, but vi that it is a usual tiling. >* Mr. Macdonald deposed that he • the lease for plaintiff, in accorda r < the terms of the agreement. The i n clauses introduced were customary . leases. Saw defendant in town, v '"* diated the lease, and said he wou 1 1 sign it, and objected to every pa lot Compared the lease and the agres j n f. gether with the defendant, who I ledged the signature to the agreenJ" his handwriting. P eo After some contention, in tv )w Warvey endeavored to prove that th ig^ in question had not ensued from tl , of contract, the Court adjourned th % l l a fortnight, with the distinct vi >W( ing that defendant should pay all era to the time of adjournment, jj, Moffatt and Another v. Thomps was an action of damages brought w"~ the sum of L4O (reduced to L2O tot a tl within the jurisdiction of this Couril in ment for plaintiff to the full ambuilj]«