RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON. Yesterday.—[Before H. W. Northcroft, R.M., Esq., & His Worship the Mayor.]

Waikato Times, Volume XVI, Issue 1350, 24 February 1881, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON. Yesterday.— [Before H. W. Northcroft, R.M., Esq., & His Worship the Mayor.]

; Embezzlement. James Fobbest Bell, late station-master j at Ohaupo, was charged with having on the 17th February instant embezzled the sum of £83 3s, the moneys of the New Zealand Government. Sergeant McGovern stated that as the arrest of the priaoi.er had only been effected the day before, he would a*k for a remand. Ho might say that it we, 1 * the wish of the prisoner that he should be remanded to nd. — The Bench accordingly remanded the prisoner to Auokland. — Prit-oner asked if bail would be allowed. — Sergeant McGovorn oaid the police had uo objection, provided the bail was substantial.— Bail was allowed in two sureties of £100 each, and the prisoner himnelf in £200.

Breach of the Borough Bye-laws. Mr W. M. Hay was charged with having, on the llth February inst., committed a breach of No 5 of the Hamilton Boiough Bye-lawß, by crossing the Hamilton cirt bndjre at other than a walking pace. Mr O'Neill prosecuted on behalf of the Borough, and the defendant pleaded not guilty. — J M. Gelling, TownClerk, deposed that the bye-laws produced were the bye-laws of the Borough, and were duly sealed with the common seal of the Borough (also produced).— Sergt McGovern deposed to seeing the deiendant ride on to the bridge from Victoria-street at a hand-gallop. He rode as far as the steps without attempting to pull up.— ln crossexamination the witness said the defendant said he was not liding furiously, nor did he ride fast over that portion of the bridge which spans the water. — James Daley, toll-keeper gave corroborative evidence. — This closed the case for the prosecution. — Mr Hay, in defence, said that he had various objections to wge against the information, but owing to ill health he was unable to go into the case as fully as he could wish. In the first place, he contended that the •'bridge" did not commence till the arches over the bridge were leached. He quoted from Walker's dictonary and from the Imperial Lexicon to show that a bridge ran a structure over water. <n the second place, there never was, to his knowledge, -uch a bridge as the "Hamilton cart bridgp." The bridge crossing the river at Hi milton had been christened the "Victoria Bridge." Futhermore, he contended that the bye-law, under which the infounation was laid, was ultra vires. Tlip Act defined the purposes for which bye-law s could be mad*', but made no reference to the bridge. — The Magibtrate quoted from a die ; onaiy, in Court, which defined a " bridge" as a structure erected over a river, a roadway, or a ravine. — Mr O'Neill followed, and, with regard to the objections raised against the byp-laws, he contended that they had not been specified.— Mr Hay wax piocpedin^ to read the clauses in the Act relating to the by^-lawa, when Mr O'Neill directed his attention to clause 349, subsection S, in which it is laid down that the Council has power to make bye-lawn for the protection of the inhabitants and for the Borough property in any street, bridges being dofined to be a portion of the htreets in whioh they are situated. — After nome further argument, His Worship said he would overrule the objections raised by Mr Hay. He considered the Act gave full power to the Council to make bye-laws for the protPction of the bridge. — Defendant was fined 5s and costs

Civil Cases. Carey v. V5 . Coombes — Claim, £l 9s; judgment for amount and costs. R. L.imb v. H. Tiiunc.— Okim, £19 8a 3d, for floods supplied; judgment for amount and costs. H. \V. Tinne v. \. Potter, claim £6, value of mattress detained by defendant. Judgment for amount and costs. —tn the case Hadfield v. Haddock, <i claim for half costs of foiu'iny bound try. Judgment was deferred.