POLICE COURT.—Yesterday.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 18, 27 October 1871, Page 3

POLICE COURT.— Yesterday.

Before W. Fraser, Eaq., R.M. Drunkenness. —Charles Truss was charged with being drunk and incapable in Brown-street on the previous night, which ho admitted, saying* 1 1 wasdrunk enough.” He was fined ten shillings and costs, or twenty-four hours’ incarceration. Stealing a watch. —Michael Breen a boy ten years of age, was brought up on remand, charged with stealing a watch and chain value £4, from the dwelling house of James Matthews where he ha d called to leave a newspaper. The lad 1 1 will be rememdered pleaded guilty when previously before the Court. Mr Bullen said that the parents of the child had promised to send him to school, and it would perhaps be the best plan to deal with the case summerily, under the R.M. Act, instead of its being dealt with under the Neglected Criminals Act.—The R.M. now sentenced him to forty-eight hours’imprisonment, and to be once privately whipped by the gaoler. Breaches of the impounding act. — John Shaw was charged with permitting his dog to wandei at large in Mary-street on the 17th inst. The defendant said he believed the dog was in the.street, but as soon as a policeman called his attention to the fact, he destroyed the animal—The do°- was about five months old.—The R.M. fined defendant 2s. 6d.—Henry Gash was charged with allowing a goat belonging to him to be at large in Mary-street on the 17th inst.—Mr Bullen said frequent complaints had been made of the destruction to property, caused by goats gettin"' into gardens, &c. —He did not press for a heavy penalty, as this was a first case, and was brought to let the public know that people were not allowed to have goats at large. 4 lie goat in question had been impounded. Defendant was fined Is and costs.—Thomas Garvey was charged with allowing a mare to wander at large in Grey-street. Fined 2s Gd and costs.—Alexander Phillips was charged with allowing two horses to wander at largo in Clarence-street. The defendant said the horses were tethered on private property, and he had the ropes in Court to show the Magistrate. His Worship said he did not want to see the ropes. Constable McCaffery stated that he found the horses at large at the place in question on Saturday last. One had a small piece of rope round his neck : the other had not. The defendant said ho tethered the horses securely and somebody must have let them loose. The R.M. said tliero were several previous charges of the same kind against the defendant, who must pay of ss, or go to gaol for 48 hours. Destroying a Fence.— John Christian Richler and Charles Biclieno were charged with damaging a fence, the property of Lydia Vernon, to which charge they pleaded not guilty. Mr Dodd appeared for complainant, and Mr Tyler for the defence. Lydia Vernon deposed : I am wife of Henry Vernon, of Hape Creek. Occupy land and premises there which belong to me in my own right. The place is fenced in. .On Saturday I saw the defendants in the garden and told them to go off the ground as they were trespassing. They said they should not go. They were digging the ground inside the fence. Never gave them any authority to do anything to the fence. Had warned them not to come there. They broke down three palings and and destroyed a post. Cannot exactly say what amount of damage was done 5 probably 10s. or 15s. would be the extent. —Cross-examined by Mr Tyler : I did not myself see the defendants injuring the fence. My son did. I saw the palings on the ground. Have had possession of the ground for three years. Have had a lease of it for about four months. There has been a water race on the property running to Mr Grecnway’s battery during that time. The men were laying down uew timber on the same site as the old race.—By Mr Dodd : Have been paying rent for the last two or three years.— Mr Tyler said the lease ought to be produced- (This objection was overruled). —Alfred Vernon, aged eleven, son of last witness, stated that on Saturday laßt he saw the defendants come on to the ground through the palings, which they knocked down. This was in the morning. —By Mr Tyler:—There is a water race there. They were pulling up the old woodwork and putting down new. The fence crosses the water race. The fence was only put across the race a few days ago to prevent the men repairing the race. What they did was to remove the fence, so that they could get to repair tlic race. They put up the paliugs again afterwards, and left the fence as it was except that a post was broken.—Henry Veruon stated that the premises in question had been in occupation of himself aud wife for two cr three years. The premises were outside of the boundary of the goldfield. Have given notice in writing to the defendants not to tresspass on the property two days previous to their breaking and entering' They had previously trespassed by getting over the fence. The property is held under lease from the natives—Cross-examined by Mr Tyler: The property in question is on the left hank of the Hape Creek. It is a part of the native reserve. It is not part of the township of Shortland.

It is not part of' tbe goldfields. Mr Tyler said this was a quasi criminal proceeding, and to sustain the charge it must be made out that the injury was done unlawfully and maliciously.—The defendants were contractors, and were employed by Mr Cameron (for Mr Greenway,) to repair a water-race, and Mr Vernon hearing of this, himself made an alteration of his fence for the purpose of stopping these men. The right of this water-race was graqtcd to Mr Greenway by r Mr Warden Bailie in 1868. The men simply removed the palings in order to repair the race, and then put them back again. These proceedings were simply taken to establish what Mr Vernon might considerJiis rights or his wife’s. The other course would have been to have brought a civil action.—He had always been of opinion that the property in question, was situated within the goldfields boundary At all events, however this might be, there was no evidence of malice on the part of defendants. —He called Christopher Greenway, who deposed that he is the owner of a battery on the Hape Crock, and has a water-right there. The race has always been where it now is. The water-race passes through land which has been taken up by Mr Vernon, and fenced in—Has been in possession of this race for four years, and before Mr Vernon came on to the ground. As the race wanted repairing, witness instructed Mr Camerou, the engineer, to put men on to repair it.—By Mr Dodd :—I do not know whether the property is within the goldfields boundary—l never received notice not to trespass on the land—Never exhibited any document to this effect at Darby’s Hotel Know Mr Masefield Never instructed him to communicate with Mr or Mrs Vernon on the subject. Received a telegram on Tuesday in Auckland about this matter. Never offered to settle the dispute with Mr Vornon in the presence of Mr Cameron and Mr Stewart. —T. B. Cameron, engineer, &c., deposed to having employed the defendants (on beliaif of Mr Greenway) to repair the water race in question. The work was let by contract, and the defendants were the successful tenderers. Cannot say if the site of the water-race is within the goldfield or not. Can’t say if Mr Vernon’s place is native reserve. Told Mr Greenway on one occasion that Mr Vernon was making a great noise, and was going to claim compensation, &c., for trespass. Mr Greenway told witness not to mind, but to go oh with the work, and if Mr Vernon felt aggrieved he would bring an action.—W. H. Grace was examined as to the boundaries of the goldfields, and said that the property in question was a native reserve. There was a Crown grant. Grahamstown and Shortland are native reserves. —His Worship said the case resolved itself into this—that these men were on the ground in the execution of their contract, and if Mr Vernon thought he had a better right tliut Mr. Greenway in the matter he hud his remedy by civil action. The case was dismissed.