RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 489, 10 April 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Thursday, April 8. (Before J. Giles, Eaq., E.M.) Henry Collins, on the information of J. A. M. Turner, was brought up on the following charge :—" that while being possessed of a certain dwelling-house held by him for a term of years, he did on the 6th day of April, 1869, unlawfully and maliciously begin to pull down and demolish said dwel-ling-house, and did unlawfully and maliciously pull down and tear from the freehold certain fixtures fixed in and to such dwelling-house,

the said dwelling-house and fixtures being the property of the said J. A. M. Turner."

Mr Tyler appeared for the prosecutor ; and Mr Home for the defendant. Adam Porter was the first witness called. He identified a lease produced as one which he had granted to the defendant, for land at the corner of Molesworth street and Avery How. The defendant put up buildings on the ground. He (Porter) assigned his interst in the property to Turner. J. A. M. Turner said that, since the assignment, he had received two quarters' rent from the defendant. On the 6th he went to the house occupied by the defendant. The bedroom window was pulled out. He told a man named Collins, who was pulling down boards from the building, to desist. The man abused him, said it was his property, and that he had been ordered by the defendant to remove it. He afterwards spoke to the man, and when Mr Tyler spoke to him, he said he would put the window in again. It had not been put in, but the room in which it was had been pulled down. The same man, who was brother to the defendant, began pulling it down. The witness called to him not to interfere or he would take proceedings, but the defendant and his brother got on the roof, tore the iron off it, and used abusive language towards him. An information was laid, and a summons served on the defendant, but, after half-an-hour, the building was again being knocked down by Alexander Russell, who said he was engaged by Collins. Two constables came, but were refused admission by Russell. Russell continued to break down the building, and a warrant was obtained, and the defendant was arrested. After dark a load of timber and roofing iron, with the back-door, were taken away.

Andrew Corrigan corroborated the evidence of Mr Turner. The man who was assisting said he did not care for lawyer or magistrate, and Alexander Russell went on knocking down the boards after the summons was served.

Mr Home took the objection that it was necessary to prove the property to be freehold, and that that had not been done. The Magistrate did not think it would be proper to stop the case on that ground. He thought there was sufficient of a prima facie case to justify him in letting it go further. Mr Home asked that a note of his objection might be taken, and he proceded to call evidence for the defence. By that evidence he proposed to show, in the first instance, that the building stood on " skids," and not on blocks, or thoroughly attached to the ground, and that if a freehold existed, it was not on the freehold. He would also show that the whole material was now on the ground, some loose material and domestic utensils being all that was rerneved, and that not a nail was drawn after the summons was served The witneses called were J. W. Melville, J. It. Fraser, and John Ward. It was their evidence that the part of the building removed was a portion of the back " skillion " which stood on nothing but plates or a few pieces of quartering laid on the ground. So far as they knew, the uprights, or rafters were not attached to the main building. The prosecutor, recalled, said that there was a batten nailed to the main building. The rafters rested on that, and the iron of the roof was nailed to the main building. About six months ago, the defendant offered to sell the buildings to hira for £2O. This concluded the evidence for the defence.

The Magistrate said that, on a point of law, he had already stated that the case was one for another court. All

that remained to ascertain was whether the evidence showed a prima facie case whether the defendant did unlawfully and maliciously remove property. With respect to the unlawful removing, that was the point on which the greatest difficulty would arise. It would possibly be contended in another court that the defendant had a right to do it, but all he had to consider was that, on a prima facie view of the case, there was an unlawful removing, and he thought that there was. With respect to the malicious character of the removal, it was shown by the evidence that it took place immediately before the rent became due, and that the effect would be to deprive the prosecutor of his property—circumstances sufficient to constitute such malice as was implied in the charge. He therefore thought that, so far as his preliminary investigation went, the case had been established, and must go to a jury. He accordingly committed the defendant for trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court, but accepted bail of £SO, and two sureties of £25 each.