BREACH OF THE RAILWAY BYE-LAWS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1031, 16 November 1882, Page 3

BREACH OF THE RAILWAY BYE-LAWS.

At the Resident Magistrate's Court, Timaru, on Tuesday last, before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M., J. M. Twomey was charged with a breach of one of the railway bye-laws ) framed under the Public Works Act, to the effect that any person making use of insulting language or abusing a railway officer whilst in the execution of his duty, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £2O.

Mr White conducted the prosecution on behalf of the Railway Department. The defendant claimed the right to an adjournment, as he had only received the summons on Saturday evening, and had not had time to obtain his witnesses, some of them being in the Mcakenzie Country. The offence he was charged with, however was so trivial that it was not worth spending another day over, so he would not ask for an adjournment. To the charge itself he pleaded not guilty. Joseph Jones, stationmaster at Timani, stated that when despatching the 0.25 p.m. (delayed) train for the north on t':e 24th ult., he had reason for refusing to allow a person to get into the train, he being intoxicated and quite unfit to be alio wee 1 to go. Mr Grant, a friend of the intoxicated man, was very anxious to get him to Temuka, but the man was vomiting about the platform, and was unfit to be in a crowded train. The defendant came up and asked ' What's the matter ? What's the matter V Mr Grant said ' Mr Jones won't allow m3' friend to travel in the train.' Mr Twomey said ' I i.isist that he shall travel. He can't stop him.' Witness requested defendant to go to his seat, when the latter said he would report him to Mr Back. Witness replied that it was his business to report. Defendant replied, 'Report to your bosses. You report S 1 don't care for you nor your bosses,' and used other words which witness could not recollect, calling him, among other things ' a galoot.' This was not the first time he had reason to complain of defendant's conduct. Cross-examined by defendant : I was standing on the platform of the carriage when 1 first spoke to you. I did not fol-

'low Grant into the carriage and put my band on him, and threaten to semi for the police. Defendant : I must ask for an adjournment, the c.ise is taking a turn tint —. Oh well, the case is not a veiy serious one; I will let it go. It would be a great expense to bring witnesses. Witness, to defendant : You did not say, 'Jf you let this man go with me I will take charge of him to Temuka.' You said, ' I insist upon your letting this man go ; you can't stop him. You did not say I had better let him go or I might be reported.' You told Grant to report me. I threatened to send for a constable to deal with Grant because he would not be quiet I did not threaten to send for one on your account. Defendant : Wiich do you consider the most serious offence—the one you threatened to send for a constable for or mine, that you did not threaten 1 Witness : Grant did as I asked him. His Worship : That has nothing to do with this case. It is a different affair altogether. Defendant : But the man who was threatened with n constable is not summoned, whilst I, who was not threatened, am brought here. It seems that I am made scapegoat. To witness : Are you not subject to little fits of irascibility of temper occasionally? Were you not going about talking about your official duties and responsibilities I Witness : No.

T. W. Waitt, clerk in the ojoods station, stated that he was on the platform when the scene occurred. He heard Mr Jones forbid a passenger to travel because he was intoxicated, when defendant said he insisted upon the man being allowed to go, and said to the passenger, ' Come in ; that's only Jones ; he has no power to stop you.' Defendant then threatened to bring the matter before the authorities, and intimated that it would be rather a serious matter for Mr Jones if he did so. He did not remember exactly all that was said, but Mr Jones said something about being interfered with in the execution of his duties, and it would be his duty to re. port the matter, whereupon the defendant said, ' You report ; I don't care a for you or yoDr bosses.' He also used the word ' galoot,' app'ying it somehow to Mr Jones.

Cross-examined by defendant : Mr Jones called my attention to the circumstances at the time. I swear 3 r ou said ' I insist on that man's going.' Defendant : I ask that it be proved that this witness was present. His Worship : The witness has sworn that he was present ; that is proof enough. The defendant stated : On the day in question I went to the station just as the train was starting, and saw Mr Grant and Mr Jones on the platform of a carriage. Mr Jones had his hand on Grant's col lar, and was threatening to send for a constable if he did not go into the carriage. I did not know what had hapened before. Grant asked me to ask Mr Jones to let the man (the manager of Mr Grant's station in the Mackenzie Country) travel in my charge. I tapped Mr Jones on the shoulder and asked him to let the man go with me. He said I was i»terfering with him in the discharge of his duties. 1 said he had better let him come or he might be reported. Jones said, ' You report 1 I'll report you.' I said, 'You report? I don't care for you or your bosses.' That was all that passed. A porter was standing by, and Mr Jonas called out, ' Porter, do 3 r ou hear what Mr Twomey is saying V The porter is not here, but one of Mr Jones' underlings in the office is brought to trump up a charge against me. If 1 had had time to cull witnesses I could prove that I said nothing more than ' I don't care about you,' and that is not a very furious thing to say. I did not think the charge serious enough to get witnesses, but the evidence has gone far beyond the charge in the information. I did not do anything but what I thought was for Mr Jones's good, for I thought Mr Grant would report him, and I thought to get him out of trouble. Then Grant is let off and I am summoned. I ask either for an adjournment or the dismissal of the case.

His Worship said defendant had had ample tim« to apply for an adjournment, and even after the case had gone on some time he declined to apply for one. On his own showing he had interfered with the stationmaster, and it was none of his business t» interfere in the matter of reporting. It was his rule to denl severely with such cases of interference, for the safety of life might depend upon the stationmaster doing his duty. He would inflict a penalty which would mark his sense of the importance of the case, and fine him £5 and costs. Solicitor's fee, £i Is, was also allowed. —Timaru Herald.