POLICE COURT.—Friday. Before T. Biokham, Esq., R.M., and J. H.Horne, Esq., J.P.] DRUNKENNESS.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXI, Issue 2613, 2 December 1865, Page 5

POLICE COURT.— Friday. Before T. Biokham, Esq., R.M., and J. H.Horne, Esq., J.P.] DRUNKENNESS.

Eliza Kelly, James Knight, and Robert Crown were punished in the usual wny, for drunkenness OUSTKUCriNG THE FOOTPATH IN ALBERT STREET. Alexander Wright was charged with obstructing the footpath in Albert-»treet. Mr. Wynn appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Gillies for the defence. Mr. Wynn said this information was laid under the 21st sub section of the 2nd clause of the Muni' eipal Police Act, which piovided against any person being allowed wilfully to obstruct the footpath, .here was some misapprehension with regard to thin case being bi ought in any way in connection with tho Uity Board. That body had nothing to do with it at all. Ib was the obstruction of the public highway that was complained of. As he uudristood the case, ib had a double aspect, It appeared that Mr. Wright bad pormitted tliostieot to be cut down in front of his property in such a lnannur as to render it perfectly certain that a portion of the soil must come down on the street ; and he (Mr. Wynn) thought it amounted to a wilful obstruction if a person permitted auother to cut his ground in such a way that it was certain to fall on the footpath— there was a wilful doing of the wrong. Another poition of, the transaction was that some of the soil which formed the obstruction was actually placed where it was by defendant himself ; and in reference to this, he might say that the aiguinent that he had lomoved the obstruction was no answer to the chaige, aud lie might still be punished for the offence. Mr. Wynn then called the following witnesses : — Joseph Reilly, Inspector o£ Nuisances, deposed : Ou the 13th November, I was in Albert street, and saw a quantity of eaith lying on tho footpath, covering tbe whole of it to a height of from four to six feet. The defeiidaut, Wright, live* in Albertstreet, abovo where the obstruction was. I spoke to him about it, and lie refuted to lemove the earth, saying that if he did so his house would tumble down. Thomas Macieady deposed : I have some property in Albert-stieet, near Mr. Wrights house. Some time ago a cutting was made in Albert-street by the City 13oaid. The conttacfc was taken to cut the street perpendicularly, and it was done neatly so. It was twenty-one feet deep. I am a member of tho City Board. Before the cutting was made the consent of the inhabitants in the street was obtained. (Permission to the Boaid to make the cutting produced, signed by Mr. Wnght ) Shoilly after the excavation the earth slipped down on both sides of the street. It came down opposite Mr. Wrights house on to tho footpath, and over it, I have Been Air. Wright shovelling the eai th down on to the footpath, to get hi» piops in to keep his home up. Cross-examined by Mr. Gillies: Albeit street, upon which this obsti action is, was made by this very cutting. This earth that slipped down did so from natural causes Re-examined by Mr. Wynn : Albeit-street is not a new stieet ; we have made it accordiug to the city levels. James George deposed : I reside in Albert-street. There has been an accumulation for some time past on the footpath in front of Mr. Wrights house. I have seen Air. Wright working tlieie, throwing down the earth on the footpath. Mr. Gillies said this case had apparently divided itself into two poitions — one with reference to the wilful obstruction, the other referriug to the obstructions caused by the slipping of the earth. Wright was charged with a breach o£ the 21st sub-section of the 2ud clause of the Municipal Police Act, which stated that "eveiy person who shall wilfully encumber or obstruct a public thoroughfare" shall be liable to a Rue of £5. He could not be charged with having obstructed the thoroughfare wilfully, but simply with having obsti uctpd it. That was a very diffuient thing from a wilfnl obstruction, which aloue was aimed at by the Act. Iv regard to what had bceusaidas to the wilful obstruofcionbydigging, he had to point out that there was no evidence whatever that at any time defendant hud obstructed the footpath by throwing earth upon. it. No doubt there was evidence that at some indefinite time the defendant had thrown down some earth, but it had not been pioved that that had caused the obstruction, aud it might only have been a small quantity that could cause no obstruction. It was clear that, bcfoie he began digging at all, the footpath was thoioughly obsti noted by the landslip that had taken place, He (Mr. Gillies) might say, with regard to this case, that a more impudent attempt he never saw iv a. court of justice. He thought when a public officer was entrusted with the duty of finding ob»tiuctions to thoroughfares, that it would be more creditable for him if he were to look nfter those obßtiuctions which all of them saw npou the roads and pavements— articles and boxes lying upon the pavements and obstructing the way. Those things were actually passed over, but when a landslip took place it was immediately pounced upon by a seigeant of the armed police, and some person attempted to bo made liable. No doubt that officer would not have done ••uch a thing if he had not had suggestions fiom other parties, namely, the City Bonn), who made the street and cirated the veiy nuisance. The Act was specially dhected against a wilful obstruction, wheieat the evidence bhowed that theie was no wilfulncss at all on the part of the defendant. An attempt had been made to argue that, because he allowed somebody else to do something, therefore he was responsible. He (Mr. Gillies) contended that the document merely went to absolve the City Bo.ud from any lesponsibihty to the signeis peisonally for the landslip, for, if tho Board had not had that document, they would have been responsible for the damages caused by it. But it did not relieve the Board fiom tlie consequences of the landslip, so far ai the public were concerned. The signeis of the document gave up all claim of damages against tho Boaul, but they did not take the risk and lcsponiibility connected with the work done. It was clear that the rarth had slipped from natural causes — from the bank being cut down perpendicularly. This landslip had damaged defendant's property, for he had actually been obliged to shoic up the house iv consequence of it. It was the act of the City Boaid that had caused the slip, for if the load had been left in its original state it would not havo taken plaoe. They had alteied tho natural levels and cut the earth away parpomliculaily. The Court directed the attention of the eouusel to tho question of tho levels, and the poweis of tho City Boaid with leference to making them. Mr. Gillies said theie might have been power? to the Boaul to alter the levels, but the btroug presumption was to the contraiy, from the document having been put in to-day. If the Board had merely been caujwjr out statntoiy poweis they would not have needed to got such a document at all. Hig Worship said it was perfectly clear that if any one had made such j. cutting as had been described, ho must have made provision against such a contingency as the slipping down of the bank. This was a matter of much importance to the whole street. Uo might ask if the levels were taken before the houses weio built. Mr. Wynn said the City Boaid had no authority, nor could anybody give a right, to obstiuct the public footpath. His Woiship said he would take time to consider the case. It was very possible that, the bank having been cut at light angles, the road would be continually slippiug. He would intimate to the counsel engaged w hen decision would be given.

CHARGE OF ILLICIT EKTH/LATION. McClougb, alias McLeod, alias Hall, and Paly, alias Uonuellai), weie called to answer a charge of a bieuch of the Distillation Prohibition Oidinance, by having in their possession a still for distilling spirits at Papatoitoi. Neither of the parties answeied.the summons. His Worship said that tho conrso of procediiro uuder the Distillation Ordinnuco was ridicnlous. A warrant should issue nt once against the parties. The whole object of tho Act might be frustrated. Mr. Wynn said he had been instructed to appear in this caso, but, as he had no written authouty, aud as the paities were not present, he could do nothing Seigenut-Major Molloy, who served the suramouses, not being present, it wan arranged thnt tho case should bo called to-morrow, when fuither procedure will be taken, 'Ihe Court then rose.

National PECuHAJtiTirs. — A bet was once made in London, tlmfc by a single question proposed to an Englishman, a Scotchman, and nn Irishman, a characteristic reply would be elicited from each of them. Three representative labourers were accordingly called in, and separately asked : " What will you fcnlie to run round Russell-square stripped to the shirt?" While the Englishman unhesitatingly answered, " A pint of porter," the humorous response of tho Irishman was, "A mighty great, ccid!" The man of tho North, however, instead of condescending upon any definite "consideration," cautiously repliod, with an oye to ft good bargain, " Whftt will your honour gie mo ? '