RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 528, 10 July 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

(Before J. Giles Esq., R. M.) Fjuday, July 9. Til EFT OF HOXEY. Alice M'Farlane wss brought up, on remand, charged with stealing i;7O or £SO from Murtagh Collins. Inspector Franklyn said that the only additional evidence he had was that of David M'Namara, who was in the company' of Collins on the night of the robbery. Mr Tyh r appeared for the prisoner. Daniel M'Namara: I am a miner residing at Addison's Flat. I was in the prisoner's hut between two and three o'clock on Saturday morning, in company with Murtagh Collins. We remained till between six and seven in the morning. When I wen: to sleep Collins and the prisoner were talking about some silver. When I awoke I found myself alone on the bed, and Collins was standing on the floor [The witness was not allowed to relate the conversation which passed between him and Collins, the prisoner not having been present.] He accompanied Collins to the police-camp, and gave information of his having been robbed of his money. By Mr Tyler: We -were in many places before we went to the prisoner's. We were not drunk, or sober—betwixt and between. We wore in most public-houses in the town during the evening. I drank at every place—indeed, I did—drank "like a fish." We were in Grady's and Mrs Mohan's. I conld'nt say who paid for the drinks there. It might be Collins. Most likely it was, but I couldn't say. Since the prisoner has been in charge I have had some conversation about this case, with a woman living in some of the back streets. I think they call her a ggy- Jt was not the " Dull Pup." I spoke to the " Bull Pup " on the morning of the robbery, but I did not say that the prisoner had not taken the money. I said to the prisoner "You mightn't have taken it at all," and that if she had taken it, we might give her £lO if she returned the full amount. The prisoner said she had not taken it, and commenced crying. She was drunk at the time. The prisoner, in reply to the usual question from the Bench, said she had nothing to say. Mr Tyler addressed the Court for the prisoner. He contended that there was no reasonable presumption that, upon the evidence, the jury would convict the prisoner. There might be suspicious circumstances, but there was no case for conviction. The Magistrate thought there was a sufficient case to be sent to the jury, although, but for the evidence of' Mrs M'Crae, it would only have been a case of suspicion. He referred to the reluctant manner in which Mrs M'Crae had given her evidence, remarking that, although there was no reason for thinking that the whole truth had not been told, there was, for a person in her position, a degree of reluctance which should not have existed. He committed the prisoner for trial at the next sitting of the District Court. OBSTBUCTISTG FOOTPATHS. John Southern was charged with permitting goods or merchandise to be placed on the footpath opposite his warehouse. Inspector Franklyn explained that the information was laid under the 7th section of the Act. The penalty was not more than 405., and not less than ss. Constable Neville and Constable Williams stated that, on the day stated in the information, they saw some goods belonging to the defendant on the footpath in Gladstone street. Mr Pitt appeared for the defendant, and, in reply to questions by him, Constable Neville said he could not say how it was, or why it was, that his attention was called to the obstruction. His attention was called to it by the

Inspector of Police. He had not giveu the defendant any notice. He had received no orders to do so. He had not given notice to any other persons. Constable Williams said that his attention had also been called by the Inspector of Police. Mr Pitt contended that, taking the section and its context into eonsiderafion, the case must he dismissed. The eighth section, by which it wasprovided uat " any constable might require a >erson to remove his goods," clearlv indicated the meaning of the Act to >e that some notice should he given ; md he thought his Worship would :ake the view that the Inspector had, n this case, been rather premature, le could quite understand the police laving difficult duties to perform. in carrying out some of these old Ordinances, but in this case he thought he must compliment the Inspector in bringing forward " a relic of barbarism," in the shape of an Ordinance of 1819. He was reluctant to think, although he was instructed to say, that there had been some little Inspector Franklyn objected to any reference to auything but the case beiore the Court. His Worship decided that he could only hear what bore upon the information. Mr Pitt thought that, upon the evidence presented to the Court, His Worship could not for a moinein conceive that the case was one for a penalty. The Magistrate took Mr Pitt's viewthat the two sections of the Act, seven and eight, should he read together ; and he thought that, especially iu this case, they should he so read. Il appeared from the evi 'ence that street obstructions had been very common with other parties, and that no notice had been given to the defendant. Had notice been given to the defendant, as the eighth section required, there might be a case for some fine. Of course he did not mean to say that any other mode of proceeding would be excluded, if parties were aware that proceedings would be taken, but ho thought he was justified in dismissing this case. He presumed that the fact of the information having been laid would act as a caution. The case was accordingly dismissed. Mr Pitt applied for the remission of costs. The Magistrate said he could not remit the costs. THE ItrOIITS OP PROPERTY. In the civil case of Da Loree v. M'Cole, in which Mr Tyler appeared for the defendant, the Magistrate gave judgment. Tho plaintiff sued the defendant for damages caused by his removing the roof of a house in which the plaintiff was, in consequence of which his property was destroyed. The damage was proved to be, to a certain extent, the result of his action. The only question was as to the jurisdiction of the Court. It was contended that there was a question of tit.e. He had considered the question, and was still of the same opinion as he had been at the close of tho case on the previous day. There was no question of title involved. The defendant may have been entitled to possession, and to exercise acts of ownership, but it did not follow that he might exercise acts of ownership in such a way as to injure the plaintiff's property. lie considered that the defendant's conduct was unreasonable, violent, and malicious besides, and that the plaintiff had a right of action against him. With respect to the amount of damage done, it could not be considered to have been satisfactorily proved, but he would give the plaintiff a verdict for damages to the amount of £3 and costs.