LYTTELTON.

Press, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4636, 10 June 1880, Page 3

LYTTELTON.

Wednesday, Junb 9. [Beofore J. Bee wick, Esq., 8.M., and T. W. Potts, Esq., J.P-].. Laboeny.—Henry Jennings, late steward of] the ship Trevelyan, was charged with the larceny of a. number of. articles of apparel. Mr Nalder appeared for the accused, and at the instance of the police the Bench remanded the prisoner • until - Monday next, to be admitted to bail on finding one surety of £25, and himself in a like sum.

BbBAOH OV THE HABBOB EEGTTLATIONa.— John Cameron, Peter Cameron, and William Cameron were'charged with a breaoh of the Harbor Regulations by allowing ballast to be deposited in the harbor contrary to the statute. Mr John Cameron was present to represent the : defendants, and Mr Nalder appeared to prosecute. Counsel, on opening the case, said there was one clause in the report of the case of the previous day, as given in the Pbbss, whioh was incorrect, and that what he did say was that the lighters were suitable ones for carrying ballast across the harbor. He wished to say this, as it might be inferred from the report that the harbormaster and himself considered they were not suitable lighters for this port. His remark was made in reply to something that fell from the Bench, in reference to drawing the Harbor Board's, attention to the.class of lighters, and to the remarks made by themaster of the Assel, to |the effect that the lighters were unsuitable for the work. In reference to some of the witnesses in the first case, Mr Balder said that of Mr Owen and Mr Lee he had heard it had got about that it was through information given by them that the charge was laid. He wished to say that such was not the case. It was not through them that the information was laid, nor had they any part in bringing the charge. He considered it was proper that this should be said, tha* witnesses brought to the Court to give evidence might not suffer by any misapprehension getting about. Counsel then proceeded to address the Bench upon the circumstances of the case, and in the oourse of his remarks, said that he did not fora moment wish it understood that the defendant, Mr Cameron, would personally sanction the commission of the offence of whioh he was charged. The Bench said they supposed, though the defence would not be made, that the defendants were not responsible for the actions of their servants. The evidence was then taken. H. McLellan, harbor master, gave evidence similar to that in the case reported on Tuesday. He testified to the defendant's vessel, the Novelty, being employed in lightering the stone produced as having been dredged up from alongside the ship AsseL iSome large boulders were shown to the witness, and he said that three or four of such pieces of rock would be sufficient to seriously damage the oopper on any wooden vessel, should the veesol come in contact with them, and might damage an iron ship. John Robertson, master of the Assel, repeated for the. most part the evidence given by him the previous day..- He testified to having contracted with the defendant to get the ballast discharged from hia ship. In cross-examination witness said he thought

tbe defendant took precautions to prevent the ballast falling overboard, and that he did all he could to prevent it. B. Owen also repeated the evidence given by him on the day

previous, as to seeing the stones going from the lighter overboard. Edward Lee gave his evidence as rathe previous case. The stone escaped through a hole in the bulwarks of the lighter. Captain McLellan recalled by the defendant said, that from what he had seen of him (the defendant) he did not think he would have allowed the ballast to fall from the lighter, had he been aware of it. The defendant having addressed the Bench, the Oourt gave ite decision that there was no doubt but he was responsible. There might be no question that he personally had not shown any negligenoe, and that had he been there he would not have allowed the stone to go over. Aβ it was he was liable to a penalty of £20, but taking all the circumstances into consideration, a fine of £10 and costs would be imposed. Crvn Oabb.— Soman v Yenning, claim £10 8a; judgment for amount claimed and costs.