PROVINCIAL COUNCIL ELECTION.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 451, 12 January 1869, Page 2

PROVINCIAL COUNCIL ELECTION.

THE NOMINATION. At noon on Saturday the nomination of a member for the Buller district in the Nelson Provincial Council—a seat which has for some time been vacant by the resignation of Mr J. Vassie Smith—took place at the Westport Court-house. The proceedings took place inside the Court-house, and there were at no time more than thirty or forty persons present. Dr Giles, who presided as Returning Officer, read the writ, and intimated the qualifications of candidates and their proposers. Mr E. K. Ttlee (after a pause of a few minutes) said: I have great pleasure in proposing as a candidate for election Mr James M'Dowell, whose name appears on the electoral roll as a leaseholder. In nominating Mr M'Do.vell, I have very few observations to make. I wish merely to state that, although making this nomination, I believe I am not acting in accordance with public opinion. Were 1 to do so, I believe that I should not propose anyone, neither should any other elector. But in case that any person who is non-resident, or who is unfit to represent so important a district, should be proposed, I nominate a candidate; andluominate Mr M'Dowell, believing that his election will do credit to the district, and that as far as it ispossible to do so on behalf of a district for which there are so few members in the Nelson Provincial Council, he will represent the interests of the district, and endeavour to enforce them.

Mr W. Pitt : I have very great pleasure in seconding the nomination of Mr M'Dowell. From what oue hears, it is possible that Mr M'Dowell may not take his seat, but, in the event of his doing so, I feel confident that the ability and knowledge of business which he has brought to bear on his own private affairs will be equally brought to bear on the public affairs of the district.

Mr T. SnEAiiAS": I beg to propose Mr John Smart Crate. I believe he is a registered elector. Trie Returning Officer: Does anyone second the nomination of Mr Crate ? Mr A. J. Brows' : I beg leave to second the nomination of Mr Crate. There was some applause, directed apparently towards Mr M'Dowell, and the Returning Officer asked if the candidates, or other gentlemen, desired to address the meeting. Mr M'Dowell, who came forward amid some applause,said: Mr Returning Officer and gentlemen—The honor which has been done to me by boing nominated for election as the member for this district in the Nelson Provincial Council has been quite unexpected by me ; but, should you return me, I shall endeavour to do the best I can for the interests of the district. I shall not go into the Council hampered by any particular views of my own, but shall endeavor to do my best to represent what I consider your interests. At some future time I shall state more fully to you my views as to the necessities and interests of the district.

Mr Crate, the other candidate, is at present in Nelson, and no other gentleman addressed the meeting. A show of hands was taken, and declared in favor of Mr M'Dowell, the numbers being for Mr M'Dowell 19, for Mr Crate 15. Mr SHEAHAJf and Mr Brown demanded a poll on behalf of Mr Crate ; and the poll was appointed to be taken to-morrow ("Wednesday) at the Courthouse, Westport; at the Court-house, Addison's Flat; and at Mr John Braithwaite's store, Caledonian Terrace.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Satttkday, Jan. 9. (Before J. Giles, Esq., E.M.,) ASSAtTLT. John Haydn, usually known as " Dublin Jack," and James Nolan, known as "Dublin Jim," were charged with assaulting "William Dellow at Lyell creek on Christmas Day. The witnesses called for the prosecution, besides the prosecutor, where B •njamin Reid, Richard Jones, and John Low. Their evidence „ was to the effect that, on Christmas Day, a few men had assembled in and near Todd's store at Lyell creek. Dellow and a man named Michael Cruise, who were inside the store, were having a hot argumeut about some claim, when .Dellow called some statement made by Cruise " a lie." Cruise then oifered to fight the man who would call him a liar, and, going outside to where Nolan and Haydn were standing, he said a man had called him a liar, he was going to fight him, and he wanted some man "to pick him up." Nolan took his part, and, entering the store, he said " The man who would call me a liar, I would give him something," and he "no sooner said this than he up fist and let Dellow have it." Dellow was knocked down, and, when down, was kicked by Nolan. He became insensible, and was removed to a shoemaker's store near hand, where he recovered. Only by the prosecutor and by another of the witnesses was it said that Haydn had struck a blow. The others saw no one strike Dellow but Nolan. Another witness gave evidence as to Haydn on one occasion, when referring to Dellow's party, state that "he would yet leave his bloody name on the Buller." Haydn, in cross-examination of the witnesses, endeavoured to show that he was friendly to Dellow and his party, and bore them "no animosity." He called for the defence Patrick Shannon, into whose workshop Dellow had been removed, and Shannon stated that, atsix o'clock on the same morning he had seen Dellow in two fights with other men, in one of which he was kicked when down. When brought to his shop after the third scrimmage, he was " much blown and rather fatigued." Another witness called by Haydn was au elderly mau, Thomas Doyle, who caused much amusement by T his evidence and his Irish accent. He said—l can swear that I never saw that man, Jack, strike that other man—nivir a blow. What was he doin', d'ye say ? He was " peggin' away" in a corner wid another man. I don't know how Dellow got there, but he was on the ground, boxing away as he best could. This is my maiden speech in coort, your Worship, this sivinteen year. I have nivir been in a coort o' justice before. If any man can look me in the face and say they ever saw me, I don't know. I have taken the book and I swear it —he never assaulted the man. The Magistrate : You seem to know a great deal better about what you did not sec than what you saw. Haydn: Were you sober that clay ? The Witness : I couldn't say exactly about that ayther. But I'll tell you what I can do. I can tell you I had my sinses. Inspector Franklyn repeated a question as to Haydn's part in the affray. The Witness : Now don't be asking me a thing that I can t tell you. This is the first time I was ever in this box for sivinteen year. Niver, Sir, siuce I landed in the year eighteen hundred and fifty two. No, Sir. No, I stand diametrically— The Magistrate : You may stand down.

Constable Pringle, called by Haydn, stated that the store-keepers and others at the Lyell bore general testimony to his good behavior. Haydn denied the assault altogether, and averred that he was rather disposed to assist the prosecutor than otherwise. He said: How it comes that they bring those charges against me, I don't know. It's very hard to give me a bad name. If I had committed myself it would bo different, but lam a hard-working man, aud I am neither drinking nor rowdy. Grod Almighty knows I have been bad enough in my life-time, without being brought up for this. If the man had died, it would have been " Oh, Dublin Jackhas done it." I'm not a contraary man, either drunk or sober. I never " double-banked " any man. I can get as good a character as any man in the country, but because I got into trouble one time, if I'm in a crowd now, I'm always the man that causes the row. It's nobody but "Dublin Jack." The Magistrate considered the charge had been proved against both defendants, but the assault was not a serious one. The evidence with regard to Haydn was not so clear as in Nolan's case, but he could not say it was altogether unworthy of credit. Nolan seemed to be the prime mover. The prosecutor was, however, himself a man disposed to provoke a quarrel, and there were grounds for presuming that he did a good deal to bring the assault on himself. It was a question whether his insensibility was due to the assault, or to it and his state of intoxication. All the circumstances reduced the dimensions of the charge, and he would give the defendants the option of a fine—Nolan to pay £3, or go to prison for seven days, and Haydn to pay £l, with the alternative of forty-eight hours' imprisonment. ASSAULT. Henry Hamilton, master of the ketch Eambler, was charged with assaulting Robert Walsh, cook and seaman on board his vessel.

The prosecutor appeared in court greatly disfigured, with his features swollen, bruised, and cut. His statement was that, after being called by the defendant on Friday morning, he was putting on his clothes, when the defendant entered the forecastle, and gave him the "hammering" which produced the appearance he presented. It was entirely unprovoked. The defendant's statement was that he had called Walsh and the other men. The others came on deck, but Walsh was drunk in bed, and did not turn out. He went below, and the iirst thing he sa.v was a pistol presented at his mouth. He struck the man, but it was in self-defence.

Walsh, re-called, denied the statement as to the pistol. There was a pi-tol in the swag, and it rolled out on the floor when he and the swag were upset.

The Magistrate discredited the defence, and the assault had evidently been rather a severe one. He fined the defendant £3 and costs; in default, a week's imprisonment. The defendant: I haven't the money on me, your Worship. But I'll jolly soon get it. Monday, Jan. 11. Thomas Doyle, for having been drunk and disorderly, was fined 20s, and 11. Maguire, charged with having been drunk, was discharged, as he had been in custody since Saturday. GOLD BOBBERY. Stephen M'lntyre, charged with the robbery of nearly 300 ounces of gold amalgam at Addison's Plat, was brought up ; and Inspector Prauklyn asked for a remand for eight days, to enable him to procure witnesses from Addison's Plat, Charleston, and Hokitika. Detective Lambert gave evidence sufficient to justify the remand. He stated that the prisoner was brought before the Magistrate at Xelson, and he produced the depositions then taken. The prisoner was brought to Westport by him under a warrant. The prisoner, in reply to the Magistrate, said he had no objections to a remand, and he was remanded, accordingly, for eight days. FREE LICENSE. Henry Pindt and Co. applicd|for a free license at the Ohiki ferry. In reply to questions from the Magistrate, the applicants stated that a boat had been placed on the ferry, and that they intended putting up a house and other acommodation. The application was granted, on the understanding that the conditions would be complied with. CIVIL CASES. Waite v. Corcoran.—The plaintiff asked for a remand, as the service of the summons could not be proved until the return of the John Penn from Auckland. The case was remanded until Friday week. Sherlock v. M'Kinlay and Shaw.— This was a claim of =£lo, damages by the death of a- dog, shot by John M'Kinlay and Joseph Shaw, diggers. The plaintiff, Andrew Sherlock, is a mate of the defendants, working in the same claim with them at Itochfort Terrace, and living in the same tent as M'Kinlay. He was owner of a retriever bitch, • which he left at the Terrace during the time he spent his Christmas holidays at AVestport. When he returned, the bitch was shot and buried, aud the defendants did not deny that they were responsible for the death and burial, but they asserted that the bitch was such a nuisance by her thieving habits that she deserved to be put out of the w r ay. What particularly annoyed them was the fact that the bitch had appropriated a whole loaf one night, which had been baked and tied up in a cloth for the use of the party going on the "morning shift." She had slso consumed a " bucket of >tew" belonging to another party, and it was alleged to be plaintiffs boast that " she could keep herself." In fact, they said, he never fed her, and, as the defendants thought they bad enough to do to keep themselves, without keeping her, she was shot. Her general character was so bad that she was known thoughout the district as " the rambling thief." The Magistrate thought there was no doubt that the defendants had no right to shoot the dog. There were many circumstances which made the case different from others in which dogs stole from other people. In this case the parties were living together, and the defendants did not appear to have made any formal complaint to the plaintiff, which they might have done. At the same time the dog seemed to have been a nuisauce, and it was not a case for heavy damages. He gave judgment for £2 and costs.

Trimble v. M'Grinley.—A claim of £5 ss, the value of a raeing saddle which had been lent to the defendant, and which had been returned useless, the " tree " having been broken. Mr Tyler appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Pitt for the defendant. It was the evidence of Mr Trimble that he had lent the saddle to the defendant on the race-ground, and it was the evidence of his young jockey that when the saddle was brought back by the defendant's jockey it was broken. It was used, however, in several races afterwards. The defendant denied that the saddle had been lent to him, but it had been in his possession, for a witness whom he called (Mr George Coxon) stated that the saddle had been put upon the horse Squatter, belonging to the defendant, but was taken off, being considered too light, and was put on his

filly, which was kept walking round while the race was going on. When the race was over, Squatter's saddle was again put upon the filly, and Mr Trimble's saddle was returned. The Magistrate considered the evidence in the case perplexing and insufficient to justify him in giving judgment for the plaintiff. There was no evidence to satisfy him that the aacldle was sound when it was given to the defendant, and it had been used afterwards in several races. Judgment for the defendant.