The Westport Times. AND CHARLESTON ARGUS. In the cause of Truth and Justice we strive. THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 1872.

Westport Times, Volume VI, Issue 915, 18 January 1872, Page 2

The Westport Times. AND CHARLESTON ARGUS. In the cause of Truth and Justice we strive. THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 1872.

Certainly nowhere in New Zealand, and it is questionable whether in any other part of the world, so large a number of well denned reefs have been discovered in so short a period as has elapsed since the first announcement of quartz discoveries in the InangahuaLino after line of reef has been discovered in quick succession, and claim after claim on the various lines has succeeded in striking the reef with undeviating results and most exceptional regularity. Again, the splendid results yielded by tho Lyell reefs, distant some thirty miles as the crow flies on the same line of country, has tended to further confirm the belief of the exceptional value of the Inangahua and Lyell as a quartz reefing district. It is now ascertained beyond doubt that reefs of great extent, easily worked, containing a large body of stone, and abundantly payable, exist in this district; andthereisno extravagance in the hope that from Murray Creek, Inangahua, [to the Lyell, tho reefs will be traced with trifling deviationsindistinctandunbroken lines. The following particulars in respect to the Inangahua reefs are thoroughly reliable, and have been received from a miner who by personal inspection of the reefs vouches for their correctness. The extent of reef proved gold-bear-ing on the various lines opened in the Inangahua field is as follows: Smiths line, 2010 feet. Shiels's line, 1800 feet. Anderson's line, 2000 feet. Kelly's line, 13 claims north of prospectors, and 3 south. On Lankey's line the workings are not sufficiently advanced to enable an absolute conclusion as to the extent or value of the reef.

passengers by horse-boat from VVestport to the Inangahua Landing, and thenco by express to Reofton. The want of quick passenger accommodation is being' greatly felt, and has already been a considerable loss to business people in this town. Arrangements will bo perfected by the Ist proximo.

The state of the Orawaitl Bridge is a matter of gravo reproach reflecting groat discredit upon tho Provincial Government. Had the bridgo remained in privato hands it would havo long sinco been placed in a state of efficiency. The roadway is perfectly rotten, and in the highest degree dangerous to passengers either on foot or horse. Wo trust that tho inhabitants will early take the matter in hand and mako rej)resentations to tho authorities so as to avert catastrophe. Wagers are freely offered that 1000 ozs. of gold will be extracted from the first 600 tons of stone crushed from Rody Ryan's claim, Inangahua.

Three pounds and a quarter of quartz, taken promiscuously from a truck load as it emerged from tho tunnel of M'Gowan's claim, Shiel's line, Inangahua, has been tested at the Union Bank, Westport, and found to yield 12 grains of gold, or at the rate of 174 ozs. to the ton. With the naked eye gold was visible on one piece only of the quartz. The Reefton mailman arrived in town punctually on Wednesday, and would leave for Reefton early this morning. The Polygraphic Troupe give a farewell entertainment at the Masonic Hall to-mor-row in conjunction with the Westport Amateur Minstrels. A crowded house is anticipated. KESIDENT MAGISTRATE COUET. Wednesday, Januart 17. (Before J. Giles, Esq., E.M.) WILFULLY DESTROYING PROPERTY;. Elizabeth Cameron was charged, upon the information of Margaret Cooke, with having wilfully broken panes of glass to the value of £4: in premises occupied by her, known as the Occidental Hotel. The informant stated that she heard a disturbance in the back yard, and on proceeding to the spot found the defendant aud a man named Frank Spence creating a disturbance. She turned to leave and the defendant threw stones after her breaking the window panes. The defendant made a statement to the effect that she had been aggravated by the informant, who had supplied her child with sour beer, and on its being returned and gin required, the informant had refused to supply it without the money. His Worship characterised the defendant as an old offender, and ordered the payment of £& compensation, and £1- line, or in default the defendant to be imprisoned for two months. WILFUL AND MALICIOUS REMOVAL OF PROPERTY. Timothy Sheahan was charged, upon the information of E. J. O'Conor, with a breach of the " Injuries to Property Act." Mr Home appeared for the complainant, and Mr Pitt for defendant. The counsel for the complainant produced certain deeds. Mr. Pitt objected to the deeds being produced unless put in with the evidence of at least one attesting witness. According to the law of New Zealand, all leases or assignments must be by deed, and, by the Conveyancing Ordinance of 1860, must be attested by at least one witness.

Mr Home contended that the documents could be put in. They were not the original deeds, but office copies signed by the Eegistrar of Lands, and under the Land Transfer Act, sec. 109 such copies were admissible, and the presence of an attesting witness was not required. Mr Pitt in reply urged that the provisions of the Land Transfer Act could not apply, as the land in question had not been brought under the operation of the Act.

His Worship decided that the documents could not be received.

The following evidence was called for the complainant:— Eugene J. O'Conor: I am the authorised agent and attorney of John Smart [Crate, from whom I hold a power of attorney, which I now produce, dated 29th July, 1871. I know the defendant. I have been in the habit of receiving rent from him on behalf of Crate, both before and after I got the power of attorney. The tenant of the premises under a lease is Mr Trimble. The premises were on section No. 18 in Gladstone street, and known as the Nelson Hotel. I never gave defendant authority to pull down or remove these premises. The Nelson Hotel is not now standing there. The last time I 3aw it was about the 6th of September, at which time I left "Westport. I estimate its value at £IOOO. I have collected rent from defendant. The last payment I received was through the Union Bank on the 13th September. Cross examined by Mr Pitt: The first rent I collected" from defendant was about the year 1869. It is about twelve months ago that he paid me rent personally. After that the rents were paid into the Bank. I had authority from my principal to accept the payments through "the Bank. I might have said once I would not accept them through the Bank. I have been agent for Crate since 1869. I am aware that during the last two years the sea has made great inroads in the towu, and that it was threatening this particular proporty with destruction. A part of it was under-

mined by the sea, some of the outhouses were damaged, and had to be taken down. The hotel occupied by Einanuel was taken down, I think prematurely. I took down the Provincial Hotol myself. The premises of Struthors and Hay were also removed by me. I have no remembrance of ever making any suggestion to defendant as to moving the building. I would have done so on behalf of Mr Crate, if I had thought it necessary for its safety.

Ee-examined by Mr Home : I have cautioned tho defendant against interfering in any way with the freehold. By the Bench : At tho time I last uaw tho building, about the 6th Sept., tho defendant was occupying it. By Mr Home: At that time the outer shell was quite intact. One corner of a lean-to at the back was partly undermined. There were logs acting as a break water, which are there still, and I considered the main building perfectly safe. By Mr Pitt: It was not as to moving the building I cautioned defendant, but as to some alteration ho proposed making. This took place some time before.

Charles iVCirfin, press-writer, residing at Westport, stated that he was in Westport previous to and during September last. He knew the defendant, who was a publican. In September last, the early part, he was carrying on business at the Nelson Hotel, in Gladstone street. On Wednesday, the 6th September last, he saw the iron being taken off the roof of the main building. He did not see the defendant on the premises at the time.

"Walter Bull, builder and contractor, resident at Wespprt, recollected the Nelson Hotel, in Gladstone street. It was occupied by Timothy Sheahan. Produced an agreement between himself, his partner, and Sheahan, under which they contracted to remove the Nelson Hotel to Lyttelton streel. They removed it accordingly to Lyttelton street, and re-erected it there on ground pointed out by Mr Sheahan. Believed he was living there now. The bricks of the chimney were also conveyed there. Did not think the building as it stood in Gladstone street would have realized more than £2OO if sold by auction. Believed all the material that could be used was worked up in its re-erection. Believed the removal took place in September last. Had received money from the defendant for removing the building. Cross-examined by Mr Pitt : Previously to the removal of the building, the premises were in great danger of being washed away. One of the outhouses was nearly buried. The main building was undermined by the sea. The back windows were barricaded., Defendant was some time in treaty with me for the removal of the buildings if threatened by the sea. Several piles were carried away at the north corner. It was a two-story house, which increased the danger. I advised the defendant two or three times not to leave it too Ions;. If it had been my building I should have removed it.

Mr Home re-examiaed : It would have been possible to put props inside to support the place as long as the piles remained underneath. Several feet have been washed away under the main building. It was some time before September that I first spoke to Mr Sheahan about the removal.

Thomas Bond, partner of the last witness, stated that, under a contract entered into with Mr Sheahan, he superintended the removal of the Nelson Hotel from Gladstone street to Lyttelton street, where the materials were used in re-erectingthe building for Mr Sheahan. It was somewhere about the Ist of September the work was begun. It extended over a week. Cross-examined by Mr. Pitt: There was a great inroad of the sea at that time, and the premises were in imminent danger. It had been previously necessary to remove some of the outbuildings. The backdoors and windows were barricaded against the sea. I have seen the sea burst through the back into the hall. I think it was necessary to remove the building for its safety. One corner of it was undermined.

Mr Home re-examined: The Nelson Hotel as it now stands in Lyttelton street is annexed to the building known as the Eobert Burns Hotel, and which belongs to Mr Sheahan. George Low gave evidence of having assisted in the removal of the Nelson Hotel in September last. "William Battibon, carpenter, recollected the Nelson Hotel in Gladstone street, and was employed in taking it down in September last. Mr Sheahan was there, but gave no orders.

By Mr Pitt : I lived in a cottage at the rear of defendant. I was washed clean out of it. The lean-to at the back of the Nelson Hotel was undermined. Mr. Sheahan took steps to secure the buildings by sand bags and otherwise.

Ke-examined: I was washed out a couple of weeks before defendant's building was removed. There were big logs at the back of the premises ; they are there still. The beach has made again. I do not think the ground had begun to make up previous to Mr Sheahan's removing. W. A. Kiely, sergeant of police stationed at Westport, recollected the Nelson Hotel in Gladstone street. It was occupied by the defendant. Have seen men cutting up logs at the back of the premises. One of them was Mr Sheahan's man. He believed it was in August. Witness was engaged in preventing the removal of driftwood

from tbe beach, but this being on private premises ho did not interfere. Had Been a carter removing the wood from defendant's premises. By Mr. Pitt: The logs might have damaged the budding by the action of the surf. Mr Pitt for the defence asked for a dismissal as the information was not supported by evidence. The oifence was not proved. It had not been shown that the defendant had acted unlawfully, and in respect to malice the evidence produced up conclusively acquitted the defendant of any such motive. The fact of Mr O'Conor not having given authority to remove was no proof, as Mr Sheahan might have had authority from Mr Crate, and whether he had any authority or not it was certain that the property was not removed until in imminent dangor. Mr Home contended that it was not for his Worship to decide whether or not there was malice. If the offence were proved, and he must believe from the evidence that it had been so proved, it would be for him to send the case to a higher tribunal. The facts of the case showed that the defendant had taken down the property without authority, and re-erected it as a gorgeous building in another quarter of the town. If the defendant were the immaculate man Mr Pitt would have the Court believe, he need have nothing to fear from a jury of his countrymen. His Worship in giving judgment, stated that in respect to the agreement as to whether the action could rightly be brought under the 13th or 51st section of the Act, he was of opinion that he was empowered to deal with the case under either. The act with which the defendant stood charged was alleged to be unlawful and malicious ; and he was asked by the counsel for the complainant to decide the present information in respect to its unlawful bearing only. But he did not consider that evidence as to the mere outward act would justify a committal. It was equally important that they should weigh the motive, otherwise the term " maliciously" was without meaning. In respect to the unlawfulness of the act, he considered the evidence excessively meagre ; and nothing had been produced which was not compatible with the defendant's right to remove the building. There was nothing whatever to guide him as to the contents of any lease from Crate to Trimble, or assignment from Trimble to Sheahan. In its malicious bearing he concurred with counsel, that it was not necessary to prove malice against the owner of the property, as malice might be manifested without that, as in the case of a party maliciously injuring cattle.' But he must say that in the present case the circumstances, so far from indicating malice, were quite the other way. The proper course he conceived to obtain redress would have been by a civil action. The information must be dismissed. Mr. Home announced his intention to apply to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus. CIVIL CASES. Rafferty v. Harley.—This case had been adjourned for the depositions of evidence taken in Nelson, and was further adjourned until Friday pending their arrival. Spence v. Kickleben.—Claim for £4 for horse hire. Judgment for the plaintiff for £2 and costs. ' CHARLESTON. « (prom our own correspondent.) The Star Minstrels performed at the Casino de Venise, on Saturday and Monday evenings, but in consequence of the wet weather on Saturday evening, the attendance was very small. It was much better on Monday evening and the performance was warmly applauded throughout. In the Eeaident Magistrate's Court on Monday last, a man named Joseph Forbes was charged upon the information of the police with being of unsound mind and unfit to be at large. Seargent Mayberry stated that defendant came to the Camp on Friday evening last, and said he had no place to go to and that he had no money, he allowed him to stop in the lock-up until morning, he then found that he was suffering from an attack of delirium tremens. He searched him and took his knife and everything he had from him, he kept him in the lock-up, and on Sunday night Forbes took an old knife from another prisoner's pocket and cut his left arm with it. He said he would have taken his life only the knife was no good, and had since threatened to do so. Dr. Henry stated that he had examined the defendant and found him to be labouring under an attack of delirium tremens, and that he was unfit to be at large. The Magistrate remanded the prisoner to Westport. Bowman v. O'Regan.—Plaintiff sued defendant for a £5 note, deposited with him on the morning of the 28th December last. Mr Shapter for defendant. The evidence of plaintiff and a witness named Harrison was to the effect that upon the morning of the 28 th December, about G o'clock, plaintiff and Harrison went to the ■ house of defendant, and upon going in plaintiff found a £5 note outside of the door, about 3 or 4 feet. He asked Began if he-had heard of any one losing anything. Eogan said ho had not. Plaintiff then handed the note to Regan and told him to keep it until some one claimed it. Defendant afterwards claimed the note and said that he must havo lost it. When they wcrtj leaving,

Harrison asked to get the number of the note, but plaintiff would not let him. Plaintiff stated that he after-. wards informed the police of his finding it, and that he only wished •to obtain it in order to hand it to the Hospital. Defendant stated that he had a booth at the races, from which he returned, about 12 o'clock on the previous night. He had several notea on him, and he had a £5 note in the outside breast pocket of his coat which he had missed. When Bowman said, here is a £5 note which I have found, he immediately said that it belonged to him. He believed that Bowman picked the note off the bar. When Harrison asked for the note to take the number of it, he refused, saying, it must have been his. Mr Shapter addressed the Court, and raised a point that when plaintiff handed the note to defendant, immediately upon picking it up, he forfeited his baileeship. Mr Broad said that the case -was clear upon the evidence, but Mr Shapter had raised a very nice point of and that he would give judgment on the following morning. He gave judgment on Tuesday morning for plifentiff for £5, with costs of Court, together with costs of one witness, 10s.