CORRESPONDENCE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3657, 8 November 1890, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

A Strange Petition. (To the Editor.) Sin, —A petition is being circulated for signature in Eketahuna, its object being to cause the removal of Constable Roche from the district, on the ground that he has been "too long tliere, The petition is a queer piece ot penmanship. For instance, the petitioners state that they feel aggrieved because Constable Roche shows, as they state, favoritism in some cases, and immediately afterwards the petitioners state they have no grievance against the constable, that he is a good,-'honest, energetio officer, but that they want a change. Poor D——'b, if they cannot remain in the district where the law is enforced the sooner they leave the better. No doubt the organisers of tho petition feel aggrieved beoaune the law has been enforced In their cases, and yet they have not had the courage to sign it. Of course a certain number of signatures will bo got. There are always plenty of bar loafers who will sign anything for a pint of beer. Qtbers will sign because thoy have had to obey (lie law. In a mixed community hke Bkotahuna lie would roquire to be an extraordinary man who could be in touch with all, Needloss to say very few are signing the petition, in faot when I saw it there were but four signatures attached, I am, &0., Eketahuna.

RMIIBT.

MASTERTON—FRIDAY. (Before Colonel Roberts, R M.) Breach of Railwav By-laws Sergt Price v Thomas FBrenehley. Carrying explosive goods on a train in contravention of the railway by-laws. Mr Pownall appeared for thedefendant. Sergeant Price stated that on the afternoon of September 80th the defendant went to therailway'station in Wellington and wanted to leave a parcel of dynamite in the office. He was informed that it could not he received in the office or sent by train to Mauriceville. that day, Mr Brenciiley then left with the dynamite, On the morning of the following day he procured a ticket and left by train sfor Mauriceville with a carpet bag. lie said there was no dynamite in the bag. However, by order of the traflic manager a telegram was sent to the at Featherston, aud the bag was secured containing dynamite. Dynamite was declared an explosive by order in council. ' Thomas Edward Dowries, stationmaster at Wellington, sworn, stated that he k|iew Brenphley the accused, Sftw liim at tlie Wellington I'ajlway station op September 30th. Had a conversation' with him regarding dynamite. Brenchley tendered a parcel to one of thp clerks, saying it contained dynamite and he-was to get it on the following morning. Told him it was contrary to the by law to hive dynamite on the premises and he could not receive it. The defendant then asked him if lie could consign it to MapipevHle. "i? Tqld him he could not.do sp ijnlqss }ie ; arfanged for a special train, the regulations to. c'avi'y dynamite on the same train as .tjfey tarried passengers, After some : H!i® conversation defendant left. 0n the morning of Ootober Ist tiesaw'Mr Brenchley on bagmtooneoftheoarriages. Asked him what he had done with his parcel of dynamite, and lio replied that he had left it behind, Then asked Lira it he had got it in the carpet bag ajid he Tol^ it was a very serious offence to take jlynamite into a. train carrying passers. He replied." 1 liave'nt got it sir," Witness then saw the

traflio agent arid stated wiiut'bad taken place. . ■ , : ■ By Mr Pownall: Saw ' defendant himself put the carpet bag in the train. Ho did not see the parcol taken out of the. carpet bag,- and could not say that the parcel was in the bag. There were no exclusively goods train running to the Wairarapa. Unless dynamite was brought the same way as Mr Brenchley had brought it it could not .como by train to the Wairarapa. Bannalyne and Co., had sent dynamite to Masterton some time ago. He did not know that small consignments of dynamite came up regularly by train to Masterton. If it did it was not consigned as dynamite.' Other dangerous goods were forwarded.. Personally lie had no objection to dynamite, He would riot mind sleeping on it. The 'only alternative Mr Brenchley had was to charter a special train, He believed one_ of the railway men had' got into trouble through mislaying letters belonging to Mr Brenobley,' He did not remember ever trying to block tor Brenchley.. A parcel of iron had not been wilfully detained,, lie did not feel justified in- sbarohing the bag without referring it to the traffic manager, Mr Brenchley made no mention* of: : caps. • Cartridges: were allowed to be carried : on trains, notwithstanding that the by-laws. said no dangerous goods'should bo carried on any passenger train. If mei'chants'received small' consignments o£ dynamite-by train ■in Masterton they received it illicitly. By Sergeant-Price: The by-laws were posted on all railway stations. • H; 0. Smith, stationmaster at Featberston, deposed to having seen defendant when the train came in.on October Ist,. Went, into a secondolass compartment and, found a carpet bag under a seat. Asked defendant if it belonged to him and he replied, "No." Told him that lie was going to take charge of it. As he was taking it away defendant asked him what he was going to do with it, Asked him again if it belonged to him, and he said »yes." Then asked him why he denied it, and he uaid ho did not know who he was. Witness said there was dynamite in the bag, and defendant said." Yes." He then gave up the dynamite, remarking tbat lie thought as long as he was in the carriage he could take it. Witness then took the dynamite out of the bag and took charge of it. Tho dynamite produced is that which he took out of the bag. By Mr Pownall: Heard that the dynamite had been refused at the Wellington railway station. The parcel was kept in an unused room at'tho Featberston station. Defendant had not said lie had left the caps behind. By Sergeant Price: On the outside of the parcel the word " dynamite" had been written, but had been icratohedout.

Sergeant Price, sworn, produced the Guzette oontaiuing the by-laws. This was the case. Mr Pownall stated that the bylaws related to railways within the meaning of the Publio Works Act, 1882. He submitted that there was no evidence to show that the railways now in use jame within the meaning of that Act. The by-laws did not apply to all the railways in the Colony, and as it had not been proved that this railway oame within the Act the information must fail,. The Bench upheld thecontontiofiof Mr Pownall and dismissed the information,