RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 600, 27 August 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, August 26. (Before G. G. FitzGerald, Esq., E.M.)

Dhunic and Incapable. — William Burke was fined 10s with the alternative of twenty-f®ur hours' imprisonment in default of payment. . Deukk and Disobdeblt. — Patrick Cunningham alias Tbomas G-riffin for this offence was fined Li, or in default of payment to be imprisoned for fortyeight hours. Breach of Police Ordinance.— Robert Mitchell, for depositing rubbish upon a public thoroughfare, was fined ss. Breach of Police Ordinance. — An information laid by Peter Clayton, Inspector of Nuisances, against John Hinchliffe for "allowing a nuisance to exist by keeping pigs on his premises," was adjourned^ till the 30th instant on the application bf the defendant, in order that he might subpoena witnesses for his defence.

Beeach of Police Okdinance. — Tait Bros were charged on the information of George Cozens, with unlawful and malicious destruction of his' (complainant's) property. The complainant failing to appear, the information was dismissed.

Assault. — Richard Langley was cha ged, on the information of Bobert Symons, with assaulting him on the 20th instant, by striking him with his clenched fist on the face, and. otherwise ill-treating him. It appeared that the complainant had a dispute with a female outside the defendant's place of business in North Eevell street. He made use of disgusting language, and finally spat in her face. The defendant remonstrated with him, whereupon the complainant abused him in language not fit to be repeated, and challenged the defendant out to iight. The defendant left his house and went into the street. The complainant then picked up stones, a scuffle ensued, in which it appeared that the complainant "came off second best." His worship dismissed the information.

BBEACH OF POLICE OBDINANCE.' This was an information laid by Mr William Henderson, Manager of the Hokitika and Greymouth Tramway Company (Limited), against Mr John Thompson. The information alleged that "Jack Thompson, alias Kangaroo Jack, within the space of three months last past (to wit) on the sixth day of August instant, near Hokitika, did, unlawfully and maliciously, break a certain part of a gate (to wit), a padlock fixed to the said gate, the property of the. Hokitika and Greymouth Tramway Company, thereby^doing iniuryiiO the amount of one guinea. Mr Eees for the Tramway ; Mr Harvey for the defendant. With reference to the name under which the defendant was charged, his worship remarked that the complainant was not justified in laying an information under an alias when defendant's name was so well known. It showed an animus. It was most unjustifiable. Mr .Rees stated defendant was not known to Mr Henderson. - Detective Browne had informed the complainant that the person who had broke the padlock went by that time. Mr Harvey applied that the information be dismissed. His Worship refused to dismiss, tfw ity

— Lark was called, and deposed that on Tuesday, the 20th inst, the defendant, accompanied by Mr Harvey, Mr Richard Reeves, and Air Christian, rode up to his house (the hotel near the bridge over the Hau Hau Creek). They asked the witness to let them through the gate over the bridge. Witness told them he had not the key, that they would have to wait till the carriage came up, for the key was in the possession of the guard. The defendant complained about the gate being locked. He remarked that he was a shareholder, and that they had no right to stop the traffic. He went toward the gate and returned with tho padlock in his hand.

Cross-examined by Mr Harvey. — The Creek was not safe to cross. A guinea was the outside value of the padlock. The key was now in the possession of the witness, who was in the habit of letting people through the gate. Could not say whether the' lock was broken. The gate was not damaged.

William Henderson, manager of the Tramway Company, stated that on the 6th inst the gate in question wa"s fastened with a padlock. The padlock was broken on the 6th, a new one was afterwards provided by the Company. The rails were also slightly damaged. The value of the padlock was from four to five shillings. The witness estimated the cost of buying a new padlock, and of trimming the rails at about a guinea. [His Worship here stated that the damage, if any done to the rails, could not now be taken into consideration, no mention was made of any damage to the rails in the information.] The bridge was the private property of the Tramway Company. Mr Rees remarked that the information had not been laid solely with a view to recover the value of any damage that had been done, but merely to test the right of the Company to keep the gate locked. An old gentleman who lived close by persisted in going over the bridge with his donkey. Richard Reeves was called, but was unable to state who hadremoved the lock. For aught he knew the wind might have blown it off. It was raining very hard that day, and it was with great difficulty that any person could look ahead. To the best of witness' recollection the last person that he saw near the gate was a packer. Cross-examined by Mr Harvey — He valued the padlock at Is. 6d. Mr Harvey contended that it had not been shown that the Company had any right to put a padlock on the gate. It was obstructing a thjroughfare. His Worship said it hadnotbeen shown that it was a thoroughfare. MrHarveyre-called Mr Henderson, who deposed that the line of tramway was four or five chains above highwater mark. Mr Harvey called no. witnesses. He held that an animus had been shown on the part of the company. The gentleman on the t!ay in question had offered to pay a reasonable sum to be allowed to go over the bridge rather than ford the creek, which was flooded" to an extent that rendered it exceedingly dangerous. It seemed to him that the company were attempting to impede the traffic. As regards the value of the lock, a difference of opinion existed in the minds of the witnesses called by the complainant. One had stated that that a guinea was the outside value. The complainant had valued it at from four to five shillings, and the last witness, Mr Reeves, at Is 6d.

His Worship stated, if the bridge was erected on a thoroughfare the defendant would be excused. It had not been shown in evidence that it was, and he was justified in supposing that it was not. As to the damage done to the rails, he would not in this case take it into consideration. As to the right of the company to block up the line, he declined to give any opinion. The question had not been raised. He should, therefore, order the defendant to pay 5s for the padlock, and costs 19s.

The Court was then adjourned to eleven o'clock next day. •