RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue III, 26 May 1870, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuesday, May 17,

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., R.M., and

John Herbert, Esq., 3.T.)

INFORMATION FOH INDICTABLE OFFENCE

J. C. Roberts complained against W. Mears and W. Johnson for that they did commit wilful and malicious injury to a wooden house, the property of complainant, by knocking the same to pieces.

Mr. Copland appeared for the complainant.

J. C. Roberts deposed that he was owner of a building at the. foot of Peelstreet. Yesterday he visited it, and saw Johnston knocking down a portion of it. He told him to desist, and heard his solicitor, Sir. Copland, also tell him to desist. Johnson said he should continue to work, that Mears had employed him, and he did continue. Subsequently saw Mears at the building. Mr. Copland also ordered him to desist, which he did not obey, but continued to hammer away. After Mr. Copland had interfered, witness never gave accused any authority to touch the building. Some time ago witness had entered into an agreement with Mears about building a house.

Cross-examined — There was a specification for certain work, and a contract was accepted bjr me, and signed by me and Moars for the performance of the work. This is the specification. At the time Mears commenced to pull down the building, I did not object — it Avas part of his contract that he should pull it down. The ground upon which the old house stood has been taken up by miners to work. I object to them working it. I told them not to work it. It is not my ground, it is Crown Lands, but I have held it, and do so still. George Morrison, builder, sworn, deposed — I have an authority to superintend the erection of Mr. Robert's new hotel I never examined the old building that is being pulled down. A few days ago a bit of flooring was laid in the hotel. When Mears left off work, Mr. Roberts informed me that Mears had written him that ho would proceed no further. I went with Roberta to Mr. Copland to consult him. Acting"] on his advice we went to Mears, but he said he would answer nothing that was not in writing in rtferenco to the business between him and Roberts. Mr. Copland suggested a letter to Mears — as far as 1 know there was no reply to that letter. Tenders were called to finish Mears' work. v

Cross-examined, by Mears — I read the first letter sent by Mejin to Roberts. I did not reply to il-.i 1 -. I remember the second letter. I did not reply to it. When I and Mr. Copland called on you, you said you would not be trapped into any convorsition, but if you were written to you would reply. The advertisement for tenders appeared that day. This concluded the case for the prosecution, and

Mr. Copland addressed the Bench for the complainant, lie s>aid that this was one of the most acjgi avatod cases he had ever been engaged iv. His client, Mr. Roberts, was a very penre.iWe man, and some time since entered into a contract with tho di'fpiidiint Mears to erect an hotel. Meaiv; being well known as a very cantankerous individual, nnd also a Town Councillor — a man who, instead of being a lender of t;:e people, had simply been leading a mob to do his client an injury. The cause of tins prosecution was that yesterday hirf client «;nv Via defendent Johnson knocking some timber off his Lite dwelling. As a ca'ifii ns man, before doing anything, he consulted his legal adviser, and ins'^ad of i/oin<,' at once and ejecting the defendant by force, he took the milder cause above alluded to. His (Mr. Copland's) advice to him was to give him notice to dc;ist, which notice I gave in person. The defendant still kept working, and we were compelled to appeal to the police. When we arrived at/am on the ground, the defendant Johnson had left for dinner,* whereupon the defendant Mears — this Town Councillor — came down and commenced work. I, on behalf of my ill-used client, told him to desist ; insfead of obeying me, he simply jeered and taunted in the most provo] ing manner, suid said that he could not bear to be interfered vith while at his work ! I had some difficulty in restraining my client from assauHing Meari, who, as your Worship's can see, would be no match in point of size for my omnipotent client. I still advised the milder course, and consequently laid this crimin.il information. And now I have to call your Worship's attention to the most imprudent part of the proceeding of Mears. Actually, after this information was laid, and after Mears had been served with a summons, he — he a Town Councillor, one who should uphold and respect the law — actually continued to remove the building, and took a large mob of men down to assist in removing one of the wooden walls.

The Bench summed up by stating that there was not a shadow of a case against ei'her defendant ; that the law quoted by Mr. Copland had no bearing on this case; and that Mr. Mears was prtoected by his agreement in removing this old house. Information dismissed.