RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 699, 22 July 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thiiespat, .lß^ Jtjly_lßs.7.. . j (Before H. McOulltfch, Esq,,;E.M.) j .- }W. Campbell, charged witli .stealing* apiece of bacon weighing about 20115s:, j the property of John Hamilton was found ] guilty of the offence and .being/ an old j offender, was" sentenced ..to six months! imprisonment with hard labor. > ■J. Murray appeared' to answer an in- 3 formation charging Km" with Having sold ; milk within the 1 town boundaries on i Sunday, ,14th inst. . ""'[. ■}."■./ -"A-. ".''■' Mr Harvey appeared for the defendant. Constable Pierpoint stated that on j Sunday last about 11 a.m. he saw defendant serving customers, that he spoke to him when he said he could not avoid it. To Mr Harvey — I saw another -party named Phillips deliver milk on the same morning about 10 o'clock. I did not report him as I had been told. not to interfere with the delivery of milk before 10 o'clock. , Mr W. M'Kay and^ Mrs "Williams proved that the defendant supplied them witlTmilk on the day named in the information. The last namad witness said it was very necessary- for her to get. the milk fresh for an ailing child. When sheihad'-on previous occasions. ..obtained milkon the Saturday it did :[ not ...keep good. : : Mr Hai'vey to Commissioner Weldon — The information is laid under an old act of Charles 11, is it not ? Commissioner Weldon — Yes. It orders , that milk shall not be sold between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. on Sundays. It is, if I may so speak, more to test the question than with a view to punishment that action has been taken.' Mr Harvey questioned whether the information would lie under the act referred to, and read some of its provisions against breach of Sabbath observance, particularly a clause making it an offence punishable by a fine of 5s for any man to follow his usual occupation on Sunday. As the Government was rnnning Sunday trains : Besides these old acts did not hold good here after colonial legislation on the same subjectr"-'Therewas'a clause in the Police Act -for instance (clause read). Mr M'Culloch — That appears to" apply only to cases of disturbance. * Mr Harvey — Quite so; but it seems ;to be all that was deemed necessary. Mr M'Culloch said he thought the act was not applicable to the circumstances of the colony- (Murmurs of applause.)' At home they had good roads, but here, it was different. He should dismiss the information. He saw that ordinances relative to Sabbath observance had been passed in othejr provinces.— Mr Harvey !was understood to say that the subject was under consideration by the local iGrovernment. " G-. Thomson appeared on an information charging him with laving allowed the chimney of a house in his occupation to become foul and take fire. Defendant

pleaded he Had given the x chiinney. . sweep toraers to come and 61ean the chimney several 'days -before the ; accidental ignition^. of^Cs6otC'; There was jonly one s^ep\ifi/towii, and^if he neglected; his business^ what i could-.be done ? L Mr pbicftnissionef <W:eldon__said there was realty a monopoly as : js^ted. %; Defendant further urged thatrt&e house was detached, brick-built, and galvanised iron roofed," so that the public safety was not endangered. ']■■-, Mr M'Culloch saict there must be plenty of men- willing to sweep chimneys if required^ but taking the; circumstances -of-the case into consideration- he should inflict ajpenalty of ~2os and costs only.; Pefendantrr^What -can, L do. with the chimneys' nowj sir ; ' am I still liable if they take fire if the" sweep won't come? Mr 'M'Gnlloch— You must get them SWept. ••.• ;^..JJ-A'. : ' ■ ' •'.- . " .Defendant (mr, evident perplexity)— But only ,the sweep . has got the machinery.' 7 An- information against 'Mr^W. B. Kingswell, charging him (under the act for the regulation of slaughter-houses) with having: caused ■icertain cattle to7r.be slaughtered without sufficient notice given to the inspector, was sdismissed^as it appeaied in evidence tEat exceptional circumstances (the ,wjldness ef the cattle and the -insufficiency of the yard) justified the procedure". " ' ;Mr •M'Gullocn remarked ihat the provisions, of- the act were: very stringent, that itjwas a? great protection to settlers, and that the Inspector's duties should be .carried put in the most exact manner. With' regard to the" defence he wished it to be uri'derstood that for the future the slaughter-yaMs must be made secure — he should ■ no11?be inclined.tp admit of the same excuse again..