RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1099, 23 May 1863, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Christchurch. —May 19, 1863. (Before John Hall, Esq., E.M., George L. Lee, Esq., J.P., and E. J. Wakefield, Esq., J.P.) FURIOUS DRIVING. John Coe appeared in answer to a summons charging him with furious driving on the Ferry road, on the 14th instant. It will be remembered that the consequences of this act nearly proved fatal to several persons who were in the passenger cart at the time. The following evidence was offered on behalf of the prosecution— - Peter Pender, Sergeant Major of Police, sworn: On Thursday last, the 14th instant, in consequence of information received he went to the Heathcote Ferry. He saw several persons in Mr. Dixon's house, lying on tables and on the floor. A female named Parrott was apparently very ill. They all appeared to be suffering in consequence of their having been immersed in water. Several doctors were in attendance. From enquiries he made he laid the present information. Accused was the driver of a public passenger cart. Charles Fearon said: On Thursday last, 14th instant, he left - Christchurch at 3 o'clock p.m., in accused's passenger cart. When they came to the Heathcote Arms there were seven passengers in the cart. There were four males and three females. About two miles from the ferry, Mrs. Parrott, one of the passengers, was chaffing Coe that he could j not catch up the other cart. She bet Coe a pair of ! gloves that he could not catch up the other cart. Accused made some answer, but he could not remember what it was. When we came to the Heathcote Arms, he was going nearly as fast as the horses could go. He was trying to be first. He tried to pass Milnes' cart. They continued the same pace about half way down to the Ferry. We then came alongside Milnes' cart. Coe's horses swerved to one side. Witness was sitting in front, next to Coe. The wheel came off Milnes' cart at that time. The wheel of Coe's cart went into the ditch. He was thrown out; so was Coe. Coe's horses rushed along with the vehicle, straight down the road, into the river. Witness saw them go into the river. All the rest of the passengers were in the cart. When he went down he saw a boy on the roof of the cart. The other passengers were underneath the water. They were under the water a little more than ten minutes. He saw Mrs. Parrott. She was insensible. All the females were insensible when they were taken out. At 6 o'clock two of the females had recovered. The accident was caused by the pace the carts were going, and the wheel coming off. Joseph Dixon stated that he was a shipwright at the Heathcote Ferry. He was there on Thursday last, the 14tli inst. Coe is the driver of a public passenger cart running from Christchurch to the Heathcote Valley. It is a public conveyance. On the 14th inst. he saw Coe at the river. He saw the two carts about 150 yards from the Ferry. When he was called out of his shop he saw the two carts abreast of each other. Two persons were thrown out of Coe's cart, which came along to the river. The horses were going at a quick trot. They went right into the river. Witness assisted to get the passengers out, and obtained a boat as quickly as possible, and saved two little boys. He did what he could to save the passengers. Three of the females were covered with water. When they were taken out they were insensible, but still breathing. [This witness, on leaving the box, was informed by the Bench that he deserved great praise for his exertions on the occasion, and the valuable assistance he had given.J John Coe stated that if Milne's wheel had not ' come off, there would have been no accident at all. He admitted he was guilty of racing. Alexander Milne also appeared on a charge of furious driving on the same occasion. The wheel of Milne's cart had come off, and was partly the cause of the accident.

The evidence in this case was similar to that offered in the previous one. The Bench, after hearing both cases, retired to consider their decision. After coming into court, the Resident Magistrate said they had considerable doubt as to whether it was not their duty to commit both the defendants for trial at the Supreme Court. After a careful consideration of all the facts they had decided not to do so, but would deal with the

cases summarily. Coe's conduct was extremely reprehensible, and they hoped that this would be a warning to him as long as he lived. The accident had nearly occasioned death, the consequence of which would have been his trial for manslaughter. Racing on a public road could not be permitted, and they would now fine him £5 and costs. Milne was also fined. £5 and costs, and strongly reprimanded for his conduct on the occasion. Mr. J. N. Fairhurst was convicted and fined 5s for allowing his horse to wander at large in Christchurch. James Cotton was fined 10s for a similar offence. . James F. McC-ardell and Edward Ivnapman were both summoned for having gorse growing on their land nearer than 50 links to their houses. Neither of the cases were proved, and were accordingly dismissed by the Bench. The Bench intimated that they considered the police ought to be more careful before they summoned persons and kept them waiting at the Court all day. If the case arose again the Bench would entertain an application for the defendant's expenses in a favorable light. REGINA BY POLICE V. THOS. HICIIENS. —BREACH OF GORSE ORDINANCE. P. C. Timmins, the prosecutor in this and the two latter cases, was sworn, and stated that he had seen gorse growing about nine feet from defendant's house in Peterborough Street. By Accused : I am not certain that it was not 20 feet. By Police: It was nine feet, for I stepped it. After a short time the witness came forward and exclaimed, " Oh, it is not feet, but yard 3 I mean. Defendant called a witness who stated that the fence was more than 33 feet from the house, he had measured it with a rope. The Bench dismissed the case, and in consequence of the defendant having been kept there all day with his witness for no reason whatever, they would allow him the sum of 20s for his expenses. Richard Bray appeared to answer an application made by Joseph Priestly to have him bound over to keep the peace for 12 months. The two men who are laborers at the Railway works had had a quarrel. Priestly having had the worst of it, came to have the protection of the law. The Resident Magistrate said that after hearing the evidence he had no doubt but that both were very much to blame, however if they both promised to let the matter drop here he would dismiss the case, and divide the costs. The requisite promise was at once given. REGINA BY SERGT. MAJOR PENDER V. THOS. P.JONES. — ASSAULT.

Sergt. Major Pender stated that on the first night of Messrs. Poussard and Douay's concerts he went to the Town Hall. He wished to enter in search of some French sailors, deserters from the Winslow. He was stopped by defendant, who represented himself as the proprietor. He (Sergt-Major) told him he wished to enter on duty, but he still refused. He caught him by the collar, and stopped him. In answer to Mr. Travers who appeared for defendant, the witness said he had no warrant. Mr. Travers said that defendant was manager for Messrs. Poussard and Douay that he had no wish to exclude the police, but he denied that they had a right to enter as the Sergt. Major had wished to do. They had no right to enter an unlicensed theatre. The Bench after a careful consideration of this matter, agreed with Mr. Travers that the police had no right to enter a place of entertainment such as this without permission. They would therefore dismiss the case. CUFF V. BARNARD. The plaintiff claimed the sum of £3 7s 6d for bank discount and guarantee wrongfully detained by defendant. Mr. Oaks for plaintiff; Mr. Travers for defendant. Plaintiff stated that he took a horse to defendant's repository for sale. He told the clerks that the reserve was £75. After the sale, defendant gave him £67 lis, deducting the bank discount and guarantee from the £75. By Mr. Travers: Defendant's clerk offered me the purchaser's acceptance. In February last, he (witness) bought two horses from defendant for which he gave a bill, and was charged bank discount and guarantee; then, being the vendor, he was charged discount and guarantee. Defendant called H. T. Dobree, defendant's clerk, who stated that the horse was sold for £75. He offered plaintiff the purchaser's acceptance, when he (plaintiff) refused to pay the discount and guarantee, but took the £67 lis under protest. Defendant stated that he sold the horse in question to a man named Wright, and took his acceeptance. Charles Wright was sworn and stated that defendant had taken his bill for the horse, and had made no charge for doing so. The Bench said the transaction was a perfectly fair one, and according to defendant's conditions of sale. Judgment for defendant, with costs. MALING V. OLLIVIER AND SON. The sum of £15 3s. was claimed by plaintiff from the defendants as damages, being amount of purchase money paid to defendants for a section in the town of Lincoln, and sold by them as Mr. Fitzgerald's property, but which he declared he had nothing whatever to do with, and that defendants were not his agents in the matter. Thomas Maling was called, and stated that he had purchased and paid for a section in the township of Lincoln, and that he could not get the conveyance signed by Mr. Fitzgerald. James Edward Fitzgerald was next called, and said: I recollect receiving an application in writing with regard to two sections purchased by plaintiff and Cox, in the township of Lincoln. I wrote the letter now produced in answer to an application for the sum of £15 from Johnstone and Williams. Defendant was not acting as my agent when he sold sections number 2 and 3 of the township of Lincoln. It was in consequence of a verbal arrangement between myself and Messrs. Wright and Murray that the Lincoln advertisement was put in. Defendant was to account to Messrs. Wright and Murray, independently of me. I drew the greater part of the advertisement of the town of Lincoln myself. I drew the draft advertisement myself.

By Mr. Williams : Quite recently I made a verbal agreement to purchase the land from Messrs. Wright and Murray. It was understood between defendant and myself that he was to account separately to Messrs. Wright and Murray and to me. I explained the whole circumstances verbally to Messrs. Johnstone and Williams before the summons was issued. I have since said that I would have nothing more to do with the property. John Ollivier, defendant, was next called. He said : About August last, I put up for sale part of

the township of Lincoln. Previously plaintiff had applied to me for more than one section ; the conditions of sale were read; the plan was shown at sale ; the red line on the plan distinguishes the property of Messrs. Wright and Murray from Mr. FitzGerald's ; plaintiff was there before the sale was closed; no conveyance for execution has been tendered to me. By Mr. Williams: Plaintiff was told that there was a joint interest in the land; Mr. Williams never asked me for the £15; I never refused to pay the £15; I don't recollect Mr. Williams asking me for a cheque for the money ; Mr. FitzGerald alone did not instruct me to sell; I saw Wright and Murray, and they agreed with the suggestion that their land should be included; they instructed me to sell it as part of the township of Lincoln; Murray was present at the sale; I never told Mr. Williams that Mr. FitzGerald had instructed me to sell the particular piece of land now in question. By Mr. Harston : I had no authority to pay back £15; I would have done it on my own account. The Bench, after hearing Mr. Harston and Mr. Williams, decided that the defendants were not liable for this action. Looking at the contract as a whole it did not appear to them that it was intended that the defendants should be personally liable. The conveyance also had never been tendered for execution. They would therefore give judgment for defendants with costs. Wednesday, May 20. (Before John Hall, Esq., R M. and R. J. S. Harman, Esq., J.P.) Christina Swanson was fined 10s for drunkenness. The Sergeant-Major of Police also applied that the Public House Ordinance be put in force in her case. After hearing the evidence adduced, the magistrates were of opinion that it Avas a proper case, and ordered that a notice be issued prohibiting all persons from supplying her with liquors for two years from this date. Patrick Lawlor was next brought up in custody on remand from Timaru, charged with being Patrick Gardiner, a ticket-of-leave man illegally at large, and who was concerned in the Lachlan escort robbery. [A picture of the Gardiner in question was produced to the Bench, and the likeness to the prisoner —after putting his hat on—was very remarkable.] The police called a man named Henry Harvey, a baker, in the employ of Mr. Andrew Ritchie, of Christchurch, who gave the following evidence: —l am a baker, and live with William Ritchie in Christchurch. I left New South Wales last September. Lambing Flat diggings was the last place I was at. Gardiner who was a butcher at Stoney Creek I knew perfectly well; he had a mate named Peasley who was hung. I saw Peasley brought to the lockup about twelve months ago, or a little more. It might have been eighteen months ago, but not two years. He was brought to the lock-up at Lambing Flat. I recollect hearing of the Lachlan escort robbery, and saw Gardiner shortly after that on the road towards the Weddin Mountains. I was with a party of diggers; we first met two men whom we suspected were Gardiner's mates. They asked us if we had seen the police. A short time after we met Gardiner himself. He asked whether we had met two men on horseback, and whether we had seen the police. This was nine or ten days after the escort robbery. We afterwards met Captain Batty, and told him. I had some conversation with Gardiner, and we had some drink together. That was the last time I saw him. I know the prisoner's face ; it is familiar to me. I cannot tell who he is. He is not the Gardiner I met. I have an idea that there are two Gardiners. It must have been in New South Wales I saw the prisoner. My opinion is that prisoner is one of Gardiner's mob. By prisoner: I have passed through the district of Wahgunyah. I was a fortnight there. This was about two and a-half years ago. I was at the Indigo rush. Indigo is in Victoria. I was at Chiltern. I knew Gibson, one of the prospecting men in Chiltern. Ido not know a man named Nestor. I don't know a man named O'Brien. I may have seen you at the Indigo, but I have a notion that I have seen you at the Lachlan and the Lambing Flat. I crossed the Murray while the bridge was being built. I may have seen you there, but your face is more familiar than that. By the Bench: I don't remember seeing Gardiner at Wahgunyah, but I have seen him at the Indigo diggings. This Gardiner worked at Reid's Creek. The prisoner, on the application of the police, was remanded to the 28th instant, at 11 a.m„ to enable the police to procure further evidence.