RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume VI, Issue 1796, 5 October 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAT. ("Before W. Fsabbh, Esq., BM.) DRUNKENNESS.

John West was charged with having been drunk and disorderly in Pollen* street, Shortland, on the 3rdinstant. Defendant was on bail, and) making no appearance, forfeited the amount of security. William Tapel, charged with having been drunk and incapable in Albertstreet, Grahamstown, on the 3rd, pleaded guilty, and was fined 10s, and costs. John Nicholson was charged with having been drunk and disorderly in Queenstreet, Grahamstown, on the 4th instant. He pleaded guilty, and was fined 20s, or, in default, 48 hours' imprisonment. WHPUI DAMAGE TO PBOPEBTY. John Nicholson and John Lamtgan were charged with that they did, on the 4thinst., wilfully and maliciously break the panel of a door, the property of Peter Norbury of Pollen-street Shortland, of the value of ss. ;

Mr. Macdonald appeared for defendants, and said as to the kicking, that 'acre was no malice shown; He thought the matter should have been disposed of in the charge of drunkenness, with the imposition of a fine for the amount done. Constable Coughlan, who arrested the prisoners, said that defendant Lanagan had expressed regret at the damage, but Nicholson had used abusive language towards Mr. Norbury. In answer to His Worship as to whether defendants had anything to say in extenuation, Lanagan said he had been inducing the other man to go away. Peter Norbury was called, and stated that defendants had knocked his door in, having first insisted upon doing so. He (Mr. Norbury) lived next to a publicwuse. His Worship inflicted upon Nicholson a fine of 20=r, and to pay Mr. Norbury 5s for the damage. He let Lanagan go with a caution, as he had appeared to have endeavored to lead his mate away. BBEACH, OF . BOBOTJGH BYE-I.AW. Thomas Boyle waß charged with that he did commit a breach of Section 43 Part 1 Bye-law No. 1 of Borough of Thames, by allowing one goat to wander at ( large in Bailey-street, on the 30th ultimo. Defendant pleaded guilty. His Worship said he had previously intimated to such offenders that he should be compelled to increase the fine. The devastation made on gardens by these goats was something horrible. For the next month he should impose the increased fine, and, if that would not do, he should still further increase it. Defendant would be fined 2s 6d and costs. AKOTHKBCABB. William Newman was charged' with having allowed seven goats to wander in Bailey-street. ■ Defendant pleaded guilty, and made a very lengthy statement about the nuisance he had to endure from other goats than his own, those belonging to him being usually enclosed in a number of allot ments in which he kepi them to eat oil' the grass.

His Worship took the circumstances into consideration, and imposed the mitigated penalty of 5s and costs.

DESTBOTING FOOTPATHS.

Allen Johnson was charged 1 with having wheeled' a barrow on the footpaths in Pollen and Grey-streets, Thames, on the 2nd instant.

Defendant pleaded guilty, and was fined Is and costs.

WANTON MISCHIEF.

Richard White, William Cafcran, and Martin .Catran were respectively charged with that they did unlawfully commit damage to and upon the glass of a certain lamp, the property of E. G. Sellers, thereby then and there doing injury to the said lamp to the amount of 10s.

Mr. Macdonald appeared for defendants, who pleaded not guilty. AH witnesses were ordered to leare the Court.

Mr. Bullen said the charge was brought under the 52 Section of Malicious Injuries to Property Act, 1867, and that the evidence to be produced was circumstantial.

E. G. Bellers deposed that he was the proprietor of the Nil Desperandum hotel, Grahams town. He had a lamp outside the hotel, the lamp being smspended from the verandah, about 7 feet 9 inches from the pathway. The model produced was similar to the lamp—octagon-shaped. There were two lights in the lamp—one on each side. Recollected the 30th of last month (Wednesday), when the lamp was lit for the first time. Before going to bed witnesss turned out the light towards the Pacific Hotel, and slightly turred down the other. Tho lights nad been going at nearly full strength. He afterwards went down to see if the lamp was safe. He found that it was. He went down at about seven next morning, when he discovered that there was a pane of glass 'broken. (Witness then described on the octagon-shaped model the position of the broken pane, being one of the underneath ones.) He found most of the broken glass inside the lamp. The cost of the damage was 10a. It was possible for anyone to break the lamp. Situated as the broken square was, it would be im* possible that any one could break it by throwing a stone from the opposite side. Witness found no stone in the lamp. Witness had always got on well with defendants, excepting White. Cross-examined by Mr. Macdonald—A man with an umbrella might break the pane in question. < Sergeant Elliott deposed—That he knew the lamp of the Nil Desperandum. The height from the floor was 7 feet 4£ inches. Measured the distance of the lamp from its position to the corner of the Exchange ; it measured 12 paces. Constable Smith deposed—That he was on night duty on the 30th. On the morning of the 31st he saw defendants, about 20 minutes to three o'clock. Witness was under the verandah at the standpipe, and defendants were standing on the Wharf Hotel pavement. After he saw them he met Carlwright, the night watchman, who then went up Brown-street. Witness then went further from the corner, ao as to, get a view of the men, who then proceeded across the road. Witness saw them at the pillar-box at the Exchange corner. Witness lost sight of them after that, and about a quarter of a minute afterwards heard a smash of glass. He was about 25 yards from the corner when he heard a smash, and then ran to the corner when" he saw the men. He looked for the place where the damage had occurred, and ultimately found that Mr. Bellers' lamp was broken. After having discovered the damage, witness ran after the men,«caught up to them, and charged them. Witness said "Which of you broke the glass? They all denied it. William Catran said " are you going to charge me ? " Witness answered he did not know which did it, but one of the three must have done it. Witness then took their names. He knew them before, but took their Christian names. Witness examined the lamp, light being in the portion of the lamp in which the pane wag broken. He observed broken glass inside the lamp, but was of opinion that the most was on the ground. He could reach the lamp, but it was rather too much for him. There were lights burning in the lamps of the Pacific and Wharf. Witness saw no other men at the time the damage was done.. Believed that had there been anyone else there he would have seen them. The night was still, and the light in the lamp did not go out. By Mr. Macdonald—The night was still at intervals, there being puffs of wind occasionally. William Cartwright, night watchman, was next examined, and his evidence was chiefly corrobative of the evidence given by the previous witness, but he could not identify the defendants with the men he saw on the morning of the 31st. By Mir. Macdonald—The wind was blowing strong. It was blowing in gusts. The night was cold. P. L. Dignan, Clerk in the Bank of New Zealand, deposed—That his duties kept him employed late on Wednesday ni»ht and early on Thursday morning. After three o'clock he heard a crash of glass, the sound proceeding apparently from the opposite side of the street. After the noise, witness heard hurrying footsteps to or from the lamp. The footsteps proceeded from more than one person. Mr. Bullen called Constable Smith for a question. „, His Worship: How far was it from the lamp when you saw the men turn the corner. Constable : About 46 yards. „■;.;-• j' Mr. Macdonald addressed the Court at some length on behalf of defendants. He said it was true that the defendants had the misfortune to be in the vicinity of the Nil Desperandum Hotel at the time the lamp was broken, but it did not follow as a natural consequence that they had a

hand in the breaking of it. There then was nothing in the evidence which went to show that the smash of glass heard by the constable proceeded from the lamp. All the constable could say was that he heard the smash and ran to see from whence it sprung. Mr. Bullen said there was no evidence to show that a breakage had occurred elsewhere.

Mr. Macdonald said, in spite of that he should still say there was nothing to prove that the noise proceeded from the Nil Desperandum lamp. It was evident that the constable had not supposed it at first proceeded from that direction, as he had at first gone in search of something else, and only ultimately discovered the damage to have happened to the lamp. Mr. Macdonald then referred to the discrepancy between the evidence of Constable Smith and the night watchman, the latter having said that it was a gusty night. He (Mr. Macdonald) inferred from this that the lamp—which was newly constructed, and of a light kind— had been broken by one of these gusts. Thus, he contended, there was nothing against the defendants save the bare fact that they had been going home and passed the lamp at about the time the damage was done.

His Worship said : I have very little doubt but that among you^ you have broken this lamp; but there is a doubt, and of such a nature that I must give effect to it. The case is a quasi criminal one. We have evidence that you must nave run from the hotel up Albertstreet to be so far from the scene when you were discovered. We have the evidence of Mr. Dignan to say that he heard hurried footsteps of more than one person. There is a possibility that one of the gusts spoken of might have broken the lamp while you were passing, and caused you to hurry lest you should be suspected of having committed the act. It is a very small doubt, but I will give you the benefit of it. You may go.

The Court then adjourned.