RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Southland Times, Volume 2, Issue 61, 9 June 1863, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTR ATE'S COURT

(Before M, Price, Esq., R. M.) FstDAY, sth June. Diseased Cattle. — Captain Sim, of the Picard, was charged with infringement of Sec. 8 of the " Diseased Cattle Ordinance, 1861," by landing 35 head of cattle from that vessel, at the Bluff, on 31st May, without first obtaining a certificate from the Inspector that they were free from infectious dis- j ease. Mr- M'Donald appeared for the prosecution ; Mr. South, for the defence. Peter Dalrymple deposed, — That he was Inspector of Sheep and Cattle, appointed by the Government of Southland, at the Bluff. It was his duty to board vessels at the Bluff, as soon as | they arrived, and inspect the cattle on board. | Was not aware of any vessel having arrived, at the Bluff, during the last few days. Had ' not granted any certificate to the captain of the Picard, or any other vessel during the last week. By Mr. South.— l am both sheep and cattle inspector for the Bluff. Mr. South, for the defence, contended, that by sub-sec-tion A, clause 4 of the Act in question, which states that " when any ship arrives in a port, it is the duty of the harbor-master, or collector of customs, or some person appointed in

that behalf by the Government, immediately to furnish the master 'of tiieShip with a copy of this Act. and also to give notice thereof to the Cattle Inspector.", This had not been done in the present instance, and as this was a penal statute, every letter of it ought to have been stringently carried out, before the penalty could be enforced. The captains of foreign vessels could not be presumed to be acquainted with every particular intercolonial law. Was prepared to show that the Picard had been 36 hours in port — that the cattle were all sound when snipped, and necessity compelled the captain to land them in order to save their lives. Also that Mr Peter Dalrymple has no public office, where people may be able to find him, to apply for a certificate. In reply Mr Macdonald produced the official appointment of Mr Peter Dalrymple as Cattle Inspector at the Bluff, under the provisions of the Cattle Act. And contended that dereliction of duty on the part of the proper governmenr officers, in supplying the Act to the captain, did not therefore justify him in breaking the law. The Court in pronouncing judgment, observed that in a penal statute, befoie a magistrate is justified in convicting, it was necessary that every element in the statute should be proved. Now it appeared very clearly by a quotation from Paley, on " Summary Convictions" (a most unquestionable authority), that " Penal Statues shall be construed according to the letter, and no further." This was also the opionion of Chief Justice Best, and outher indisputable authorities. In this case the Act of Parliament states that no cattle shall be introduced into this colony without a certificate from the Inspector; also, by the previous clause, when any ship arrived, it was the duty of some person appointed by government immediately to furnish the ship with a copy of the act, and ateo to give information to the cattle inspector of the arrival of such vessel. That clause comes very clearly before the clause inflicting punishment for breach of the act. That clause was very clearly inserted to prevent the hardship of captains becoming liable to the penalty, without due notice having been given. In this respect it differs from the Customs' Act, which says nothing about furnishing information, but only that certain documents shall be filled up. In this case the clause in question must be complied with before the penalty can be inflicted. Case dismissed, with costs £1 6s. William Bowyer was charged (at the instance of the Town Board,) with encroaching on the public thoroughfare in Tay and Clyde streets, without due authority. Inspector Weldon conducted the prosecution. Mr. Harvey appeared for the defence. Sergeant Chapman deposed that defendant keeps an apple stall about the junction of Tay and Dee streets. Gave him notice to remove his buildings from the public street within a month, which defendant refused to do. Mr. Marchant deposed that he was engineer to the Town Board. The map produced was a plan of Invercargill. The premises occupied by defendant are at the junction of Tay, Dee, and Clyde-streets. By Mr Harvey : The building is not in the Reserve, nor in Dee-street or Clyde-street proper, but on the common ground at the junction of Tay, Dee, and Clyde streets. There is no read being formed there at present by the Town Board. Had: heard that considerable disputes had arisen respecting the boundary lines of the sections, in consequence of the survey of the town being defective. By the Court : Will undertake to swear that defendant's building encroaches on Dee and Clyde-streets. Mr Harvey, for the defence, contended that the information was laid erroneously, as Mr Marchant had stated that the premises in question were not situate in Dee or Clyde streets. Was also prepared to show that defendant had received proper authority to occupy the spot in question. But had not received a written legal notice to quit. This authority, given in writing by the Superintendent was produced in Court and read, granting permission to defendant to occupy an apple-stall at the spot in question, but to be ready to quit at two day's notice. Mr South stated, for the information of the Court, that his attention had been recently drawn to this subject, and he had seen several Government officials on the matter, who had stated that it would be necessary to have a trigonometrical survey of the town made before the disputed lines could be rectified. Mrs Bowyer deposed that she had waited on his Honor the Superintendent and obtained a written permission (produced in Court) to erect a building on the spot in question. Had been told by Sergeant Chapman to remove, but had not received what she considered a proper legal notice in writing. The Court thought that time should be allowed for defendant to remove. Inspector Weldon said the police were quite willing to give any time required by the defendant. They had already offered defendant a month ; they were willing even to assist in the removal of the building. The police had been instructed by the Town Board to take action in the matter. On defendant agreeing to remove in a month, the case was dismissed, with 3s 6d costs. The case of William Isnor was again remanded for eight days, on the application of Inspector Weldon. Matheson and Gracie, v Simpson and Dogherty. — No appearance ; case dismissed. Condon v Fogharty. — No appearance ; case dismissed. Saturday, 6th June. ! (Before M. Price, E.M., and T. M'Culloch, J.P. ! Drunkenness, — William Chedar was charged with being drunk last night in Taystreet. Fined 10s. Slaughter Yards. — Messrs. Longley and Coxon applied for licence to open a public slaughtering-yard on his premises. The Inspector of Slaughter- Houses reported that he had visited the premises, and thought them well adapted for the purpose ; though the drainage was rather defective, owing to the peculiar nature of the ground. Licence granted. Mr. Petrie applied for a similar licence. After some demur, license was granted for twelve months, with the distinct understanding that the premises should be removed further from the town by that time. Monday Bth June. There were only two drunken cases before' the Court to-day.