RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON.

Waikato Times, Volume XVI, Issue 1344, 10 February 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON.

Yesterday-— (Before H. "W. Northcroft, Esq., KM., and His Worship the Mayor., Breach of the Borough By-laws. Henry John Paton was charged with this offence, by driving through the streets of Hamilton on the night of the 30th ultimo, without having lights attached to his vehicle. Mr W. M. Hay, who appeared for the defendant, pleaded guilty. Sergt McGovera. who prosecuted, said the defendant lived at a considerable distance from Hamilton, and as he had admitted the charge, he (MrMcGovern) had no desire to press it. Mr Hay said the by-laws were getting to be a public nuisance. Of course it was no excuse to say the defendant did not know the by-laws, but as a matter of fact, a copy was not to be obtained except by payment of L 3. Some steps should be taken to make them public. Seigb. McGovein said he would have been glad to jrive Mr Hay a copy. Mr Hay : You are not supposed to have them. The Bench would not inflict a fine in this instance but they hoped Me Paton in future would see to it that he carried lights.

Alleged Injury to Borough Property. Charles Edwin Pearson was charged with that lie had nofc on the night of the 3Obh ult wilfully damage a padlock the px'operty of the Hamilton Borough Council, attached to the gate of 1 the Bridge. Sergt. McGovern conducted /the prosecution, and Mr < Hay appeared for, Mr JPeai\>on and pleaded not guilty. I Sergt. McGovern said the facts of the case were very generally knowfn, and he would not therefore unnecessarily take up the time of the Court, hut would call^ J. M. Gelling-, Town Clerk, who deposed that the damaged lock (produced), was the property of the Corporation of Hamilton. Mr Daley was the* person employed to take the toll. Mr Hay here remarked that, though he had every respect for His Worship the Mayor, it would be well if he would retire from the Bench during the progress of a case which affected the Borough. His Worship at once complied. James Daley, toll- keeper, deposed that lie knew the defendant by sight. He saw him on the 30th ultimo. On the evening of that day he locked the gate at the usual time, about 10 o'clock, and went to bed. Shortly afterwards he heard thesound of a horse's feet on the bridge, and when he would suppose the vehicle to be half way over, the occupants c.illed out to open the gale. Shortly after he heard another call which he answered, When the vehicle grot to the gate, one of the occupants, Mr. Pearson, he afterwards found, jumped out. Witness heard the gate lifted, and at the same time a voice exclaimed " If you give it a g-ood pull in, it will come away." On heaiing that remark, witness went out, and was almost in time to see the gate opened. H' 1 answered the call. The gate was securely locked when he went to bed, but after Mr Pearson had gone, tho lock was useless. To the Bench : The defendant passed at a quarter after 10 o'clock. They cjme over the bridge at a walking pace. It would take them about a minute and a h-vlf to come across. The sate is locked at night, by order of tho Council. The length of time it takes me to answer a call depends on the stafco I am in. Mr Nbrthcrof t : Whether you are drunk or sober ? (Laughter.) Witness : No, your Worship ; but whether lam asleep or awake. If awake, it would only take me half a minute. I was not asleep at the time. It wat> not a d.uk night. Henry John Paton deposed that he crossed the bridge in company with AhPearson and Mr Brock about half-past 10 o'clock. The toll-gate was aim 5 when they got to it, but he could not say whether it was locked or not. He called out two or three times, but it was a minute or a minute and a-half from the time they arrived at the gate until they got through. He asked Mr Pearson to get out and open the gate, but gave him no instructions as to how he was to do it. No one said anything about lifting the gate and giving it a wrench. Mr Pearson did not have any difficulty in opening the gate. He just opened it as he would any other gate. He did nofc hear the toll-keeper say he was coming, but saw him after the gate had been opened. He would have remerabeied auy other words had they been uttered. He heard no noi^e as of breaking a lock, or forcing the gate. Mr Pearson opened the gate with one hand. He was sure he would have heard the lock snap if it had been broken. He did not see the lock. Sergt McGovem handed in the Borough byelaws and the Gazette, and closed the case. Mr Hay objected to the bye-laws being received as evidence, as the authenticity of the seal affixed thereto had not been proved. His Worship made a note of the objection. Mr Hay made a further objection to the information, which stated that the lock was the property of the Borough Council, whereas it was the property of the Corporation, which included the Mayor, the Council and the burgesses. He quoted from the Municipal Corporations Act in support. His Worship said the information could be amended at any time during the hearing of the case. Mr Hay said he was not going to rely upon, these technical points, but he submitted that it was only right that such matters should be attended to. He then proceeded to explain the action of ihe defendant and Messrs Paton and Brock, concluding by saying that the most reasonable explanation of the affair was that the lock had been broken by someone going through previous to these gentlemen, and that "when they passed, the look was not on at all. He called, Charles Edwin Pearson, the defendant, whose evidence was corroborative of that given by Mr Pdton. He denied that anything was said relative to breaking open the gate by anyone. In cross-examination, witness said it was about four minutes from the time they first called till they got through. Mr Hay said he had telegraphed to Mr Brock, bat that gentleman was not able to fret here in time. His Worship said the weighfc,of evx« - $W$ was oerttiuly ia tow of tbo

defence. The, toll-keeper was in bed a quarter of an" hour, and it was quite possible that the lock was broken in the tneanti me. Both witnesses had iworn that no such language as that imputed to them by Mr Daley had been used and that no force had been resorted to open the gate. If people were left waiting two or three minutes at the gate, it was natural enough that they should try to open the gate. He would dismiss the information. v „ .. Mr Hay applied f oncosts. , ,„ His Worship said if he gave costs against the police it would be very hard to get them to take up similar cases in future. Mr Hay said though the police were the prosecutors, the real plaintiff was the Borough Council, which .should be made to pay. Mr Hay quoted iuthori* ties, and His Worship said he would lo6k up the matter, though he did not suppose he would see any reason to alter hit opinion,

Civil Cases. Judgment was given in the following cases for plaintiffs with costs by default. T. Rothwell v. Wilson and Watson, claim L 9 for rent ; Kirikiriroa Highway Board v. Christie claim L 2 11s 3d for rates ; E. Fitzpatrick v. H. Worthington claim L 3 2s 4d per store* supplied. T. C. Hammond v. Joseph Itkbs. — Mr O'Neill for plaintiff. Claim, £10 12b, for commission and journalistic services in oennection with the Waiktto Mail, — De« fendant had paid £7 7s 9d into Court, with costs 12s, and disputed plaintiff's solicitor's fee, one guinea, and 6»voral items in the bill ef particulars. From the evidence of plaintiff, it appeared that he had from the time of starting been acting as canvasser and ' Hamilton correspondent for the Mail ; but early in November, finding from various causes that his position was an unsatisfactory one, and not being able to get his account settled, he resigned bis position, and not hearing anything further from the defendant, who went to Sydney, the present proceedings were taken. The principal items in dispute were the sum of £1 for correspondence not inserted, which plaintiff swore defendant had promised to pay for, and hotel expenses incurred by plaintiff at>a timo when he had been sent for ' to take charge of the Mail, owing to the sadden leaving of the editor aud sub-editor. There were also several small items of commission disputed, and a large amount of evidence was taken as to the custom of tne trade, Messrs George Edgecumbe and F. Yon Stunner being examined for the plaintiff and Messrs Montrose, Reddin and Hankin for the defence. Ultimately judgment was given for plaintiff with the exception of three items, amount* ing to £1 13s 9d, which plaintiff alleged he was entitled to, but which, owing to there being no specific agreement between the parties, the Court disallowed. Judgment for plaintiff, for £8 18s 3d, and costs £3 15s, including 10s awarded to plaintiff for loss of time in attending.