RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 349, 12 September 1868, Page 6

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, September 7. (Before J. Giles, Esq. R.M.) DBTTNKEFNESS. Michael M'Cormick, John "White, Patrick Hennessey charged with heing drunk, paid the usual penalty. ASSAULT. .Robert Mee, charged with having assaulted Henry "Wilson, was discharged as the prosecutor did not appear. EMBEZZLEMENT. James Derlyaline was charged with having on the 3rd of September embezzled the sum of 14s. 6d., the property of his employer John Lewis of Charleston. Detective Lambert, said he arrested the prisoner on the previous night, on information given by the prosecutor Lewis on a charge of embezzlement. Prisoner- neither denied or admitted the truth of the charge. Prosecutor signed *he charge sheet in prisoners presence. The prisoner was then remanded to Charleston. BBEAKING WINDOWS. Thomas M'G-rath admitted having broken the windows of Isabella Newton on the 3rd inst, at Addison's Flat, tha damage of which was laid at £3. Complainant said that the defendant and another man came to her house about one o'clock in the morning, on the 3rd. He called for drinks, and after taking them, refused to pay for them. Defendant had asked two other men who were there to drink, and when he refused to pay a quarrel arose. Defendant went out and complainant, saw him pick up a stone, and directly afterwards he threw it through the window, and ran away. The window would cost £3 to repair. Defendant said that he was assaulted in the bar, and that the man who did it was pushed into a room, and he was turned out. He was very excited and might have broken the window. He was very sorry for it if he had done so. ihe Magistrate ordered defendant to pay £3 and crasts, or in default to be imprisoned for three weeks with bard labor.

Tuesday, September 8,1868. (Before Dr Giles, Esq., E.M.) BKEACH OF THE STAMP ACT. James O'Donnell appeared on bail, charged on the information of T. P. "Winstanley, Distributor of Stamps, with having on the 29th inst., made and signed an order for payment of money (£2) without the same being duly stamped as required by the Act.

Mr Pitt, Crown Prosecutor, appeared to support the information. On being asked what he had to say to the charge, defendant admitted that he had given the order, but stated that he was at the time perfectly ignorant of any stamp being required. Mr Pitt, in reference to the plea of ignorance, remarked that the Magistrate had no power to take cogniz. ance of it. The law was clearly laid down in the 14th section of the Stamp Act, that any order for the payment of money was and should be necessarily stamped. It had long been known that the Act was constantly and systematically evaded, and he had received instructions when documents were issued that were liable to the duty, to take proceedings, wherever it was pos- ; sible to prove the infringement of the law. In the present instance the information was laid by the Distributor of Stamps, and the Magistrate had no alternative but to inflict the penalty provided. The document in question was handed to the defendant, who again admitted that it was his. He had not

been in business since the Stamp Act came into operation, but had been working for Wages, and he did not know its provisions, as he had never read or seen it. He had heard that stamps were required for receipts of over £5, but he did not know that they were necessary under that amount, or for orders of that kind. That was the only plea he had goh The Magistrate said the defence was one that could not weigh With that Court, though it might weigh with the Government, if defendant applied for a remission of the penalty. He had no discretion in the matter, and the Act was ver? stringent; in fact he had not even discretionary power; as to the amount of the penalty. He was sorry defeudant was not represented by counsel, so that any possible point capable of being raised in his favor, could have been urged* His course was plain. Under the Act any person signing a draft or order for the payment of money, was liable to a fine of £SO. He had no power to mitigate the amount or deal with the case in any other way than inflicting the penalty of £SO. It was open to defendant to apply to the Government for a mitigation or on the other hand to raise any poinstof law possible, and he (the Magistrate) would be quite ready to state a case on an application being made. At present he had only one course to pursue, viz., inflict a penalty of £SO. Inspector Franklyn enquired if the fine was to be levied by distress. The Magistrate said it was, and the defendant was allowed to leave the Court. CIVIL CASES. Came and Co. v. Malony and party. —ln this case, which had been adjourned for the Magistrate's decision, a verdict was given for £56 16s 4d. Dewdney v. Wbolfe.—A verdict was given by default for theplrintiff, but the amount was not stated.