RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 421, 5 December 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Friday, Dec, 4. (Before J. Giles, Esq., R. M., and S. Thorpe, Esq., J.P.) WJNSTANLEY V. PALMER.

This was an action instituted by direction of the Postmaster-General, against the master of the Charles Edward, for omitting to give notice of his departure on the 19th November, for Nelson and Auckland, to the Postmaster at Westport. Mr Pitt appeared for the plaintiff, and stated the case.

T. F. Winstanley said: I am postmaster at Westport. The Charles Edward was lying in the river on the 19th Nov. Captain Palmer gave me notice that the Charles Edward was going to sail that day at 2 o'clock. I saw him afterwards, and he then told ine that he should not leave before three o'clock. I turned into the office and told Mr Frazer, my clerk, that the mails were to be ready before three o'clock, and they were sent by Walter Bishop, the authorised shipping agent, at a quarter before three, to take on board the steamer. Bishop returned to the office at eleven minutes to three, bringing back the mails. There were letters for Nelson and Auckland, with forward letters to be despatched from Nelson. This prosecution has been instituted by the Postmaster-General.

By Captain Palmer: You told me outside the Post-office door that you would not go until three o'clock. By the Court: The first notice I got was a verbal notice, not a written notice.

Walter Bishop: lam authorised carrier of the mails to the shipping. On the 19th November I got the mails a quarter to three o'clock to take on board the Charles Edward. I went as far as the wharf, and the steamer was then steaming down the river, and was half-way between Stanley Wharf and the Lagoon. I took the mails back to the Post office.

John D. Frazer: lam clerk in the Post office. On the 19th November Captain Palmer gave notice of sailing that dayat two o'clock to the Post office. Captain Palmer was at the Post office before two o'clock, and told Mr Winstauley he need not send the mails before three, as he was not going until that hour. Bishop brought back the mails ten minutes before three—if anything before that time. I went out with Bishop and looked at the telegraph clock.

By Captain Palmer: You gave written notice of departure at two o'clock. It is necessary to give written notice. I could hear what passed between youandMr Winstanley outside the Post-office that day. I heard you say " There is no occasion to send down the mails before three o'clock; I shall not leave till then."

By Mr Pitt : I am quite sure Mr Moore gave written notice to the Postoffice for two o'clock.

A. E. Moore: I am agent for the steamer, Charles Edward. Igavewritten notice to the Post-office that the steamer would leave at two o'clock. It is usual, for the last month or so, to give written notice. Mr Winstanley asked me to do so in my office some time ago. Verbal notice had been given before that time. I asked Mr Winstanley on the 19 th ult. if he knew that Captain Palmer was not goiug until three o'clock. Captain Palmer said, in defence he thought it was a very ungentlemanly thing of Mr Winstanley to take advantage of a private conversation. Re had waited for the mails before and had not got them —on one occasion three-quarters of an hour, and then had to leave without them. He (Captain Palmer) gave no notice at all. He was to have sailed on the 18th, and there was the stamp on his papers for the 19th ult. The notice, which was given was only for Nelson, not for Manukau. On this occasion the steamer was whistling from twenty minutes past two to ten minutes of three o'clock, and that should have intimated to Mr Winstanley that she was going. The Court adjourned for five minutes.

The Bench, on.the Court resuming, considered that there had been looseness both on the part of the Post Office and the steamer. Captain Palmer's line of defence was one which might be sustained were it not that Mr Moore appeared to have acted as his agent by giving notice of sailing at two o'clock. The Bench came to the conclusion that they would not inflict the penalty the law allowed them in this case. Under the circumstances they would inflict a fine of £lO and costs.