LYTTELTON.

Press, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4635, 9 June 1880, Page 3

LYTTELTON.

Tubsdat, Jxtsb 8. [Before J. T. Bouse and J. D. Maophenon, Eeqrs., J.P.I L&BOBNT.—William Nicole and William. Wakelin were oharged with the larceny of apiece of baoon from the Crown Hotel on the 6th instant. Samuel Chapman, cook at the hotel, was put in the box, bub his evidence was interrupted by a request from one of the accused for an adjournment to enable him to procure counsel. The case was thon adjourned until next Friday, defendants to be admitted to bail, eaoh to find one surety of £25 and his own for £25.

Absent -without Lbavb.—William Lightalley was oharged with being absent without leave from the ship Orari. The Benoh dismissed the case, and ordered him on board.

Bbbaoh op Habbob Regulations.—John Bobertson, master of the barque Assal, was charged with committing a breach of No. sft of the Harbor Regulations. Mr H. N. Nalder appeared to prosecute for the Lyttelton Harbor Board, and addressed the Beach upon the enormity of the offenoe of allowing ballast to be thrown into the inner harbor. H. B. MoLellan, harbor-master at Lyttelton, testified that the Aseel was berthed at No. 4 jetty on May 24th. She was still alongside that wharf, She came from Brisbane, and had a sort of freestone in her for ballast when she arrived here. A sample of the stone was produced, whioh had been dredged up alongside of the vessel, and a piece taken from the ballast lighter Novelty the vessel whioh had been employed to take the ballast from the Aeeel. Pieces of stone as heavy as 601bs. had been dredged up of fcbis kind of stone. The dredge had taken up between three or four tone. The mode of dieoharging the ballast was by a shoot into the ballast lighter. There is a place for the ballast; lighters to discharge at, namely, at Gharterie Bay. No one has a right to deposit anywhere else in the harbor. The work of the dredge showed that.the stone had been thrown over close alongside the barque. In reply to the Bench the defendant said he did not wish to deny that the stone came from hia vessel, but he denied he was responsible for it being there. G-. Owen deposed that he saw the lighter in question alongside the Assel, and he saw the ballast was so piled up that it waetopplingoverinto the water. There was so muoh of it falling into the water that hie attention was dxawn to it. He was standing on the wharf at the time. Cross-examined by the defendant—Witness said he was on the wharf for about five minutes or so. He had no illwill to the defendant or to Mr Cameron, and did not know that he was going to be called until Monday afternoon. Edward Lee gave similar evidence as to seeing the stones falling overboard from the ballast lighter. There was not muoh of it. The stones were discharged from the barque into the lighter, and some fell thenoe over the side of the lighter, There was a man on the ballast boat, who when he saw it falling over, pat a board along and stopped it. W. Wyman, employed on board the sooop dredge, testified to having dredged up the stone as testified. Baoh of the witnesses identified the atone as that from the Aseel. This was the ease for the prosecution. The defendant then stated that he had employed an experienced stevedore to take away the ballast, and eonse* quently had no oharge.of the matter. John Bobertson, the defendant, was then sworn, and stated that he employed Mr Cameron to discharge the ballast, and he had got tarpaulins and boards to do so. He had paid for the ballast to be taken away, and it was not then likely that he would throw it overboard. In answer to the Benoh, witness said Mr Cameron had the whole responsibility of taking the ballast out of his ship's hold, and putting it into the lighter to take it away. He was quite aware that it was contrary to the harbor regulations of all porta to throw rubbish or ballast orer the side. He saw one piece of stone fall into the water, and that moment he sent for some boards to prevent any more falling out> Cross-examined —Witnese said he did not station one of his men to watch how the ballast was being taken away. Witness further stated he believed the cause of the whole thing woe that the lighters were not properly shaped to carryballast, and no such lighten should be licensed as the ones which he had seen carrying ballast at this port. They were altogether unadapted to the work. The Benon said that although a breaoh of the regulations was a serious offence, yet in this case there was nothing to show wilful negligence on the part of the captain. The Bench thought the Harbor Board's attention should be called to the class of lighters used in the harbor. Mr Nalder said tfmt aa to that the harbor master had reported upon it to the proper It wa» not for the master of the ship to decide whether the lighters were or were not suitable ones. The Bench said the cue would be ii*miesed. Mr Nalder asked whether in future cases culpable negligence must be proved. The Benoh replied that they were of the opinion the wrong person had been summoned in the case.