POLICE COURT.—Friday. [Before,T. Esq., R.M.]

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIV, Issue 3356, 18 April 1868, Page 4

POLICE COURT.— Friday. [Before,T. Esq., R.M.]

Dj&unkmnms.— George Walton and Margaret Brainsbury were- punished for this offence. • . Bkbaah or Stkam Navigation Afer, 1866.— Thomas Scon, master of the steamer 'Enterprise No. 2,' was otaarged,on the information of Mr,. Homy Scott McKellar, Collector of Customs at the, port of Auokland, with haying on 13th April ooindutted a breach of the 16th clause of the above Aot» by having on board a greater number of passengexstthaa authorised or specified in the certificate issued udder the said Act, and the Steam Navigation Act jA.mend- ' ment Act, 1867.—Mr. Brookfield, who appeared for the prosecution, stated that the certificate issued in •ooordanoe with the Act stated the number of passengers the Teuel could carry with safety under the 16th clause of the Aot. "It shall not be lawful to oarry on board any suoh vessel as aforesaid a greater number of passengers, whether deck passengers or other passengers, than the numbers respectively stated in any such certificate, and if the owner or matter or oth«r person in charge of suoh vessel reoeivs on board -thereof, orif such vesselshallatany time hare onboard, anygreater number of passengers, whether deckpassenger* or other passengers, than the number respectively ■pedficd in suoh certificate, the owner or the master, or other person having the charge thereof, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding twenty pounds, and shall forfeit in addition a sum not exceeding five pounds if a sea-going vessel r and a sum not exceeding I'twenty1 ' twenty •hillings if a river-going vessel, ■ for every passenger over and above the number so specified; in the certificate as aforesaid."— His Worship : Is this a sea-going vessel t— Mr. Brookfield : No ; it is a river steamer plying between Auckland and the Thames. There were, no doubt, extenuating circumstances in the present case. It was Easter Monday, . and a great many of the diggers from the Thames goldfield had just got their protection granted until Tuesday, and they thought they would go in the steamer upon any risk. That, of course, was no real excuse for defendant, although he had prevented them from crowding the vessel as much as he could. It was considered desirable to bring the case forward. The certificate stated that the steamer should not carry more than 125 passengers, and on the occasion in question there were 215 passengers on board, counted by tbe Emigration Officer, Captain Williams. That would be 90 passengers over and above the authorised number. The defendant admitted that the number of passengers stated]were on board. — Mr. Brookfield said, as that was the first case, it might answer the ends of justice if a warning were given to defendant and a nominal penalty inflicted. — His Worship to defendant : What passage money did you receive from each passenger ? — The defendant replied that the amount received was 4i. a head. — His Worship said that possibly a warning would be Mffioient. The defendant was liable to a penalty of £20, and also an additional penalty of £90 } but, after what had been said on behalf of the prosecution, the Court would not deal to htrihly with defendant. At all events it would be essentially necessary that » fine shonld be inflicted sufficient to deter not only the defendant, but others, from committing such a breach. It seemed perfectly marvellous how so many persons could be packed on board suoh a small vessel. With such, a large number on board there must have been imminent danger to both life and property. The certificate was given in order that danger should not arise from overloading the vessel with passengers, *nd there could be no very great excuse for defendant except that of cupidity. It was defendant's bounden daty to have procured tbe assistance of the authorities (when those personsrushed onboard, so that the steamer should depart with only the authorised number of passengers. — The defendant said he had done all he could to keep them out of the vessel.— His Worship said the Court would inflict a v penalty of £18. The defendant had received that money, and, therefore, it was no punishment at all. He trusted defendant and others would bear in mind that if another such offence should take place a very large penalty would be inflicted, as the lives and property of the public mast be protected. After what Mr. Brookfield had stated; the infliction of the penalty mentioned would be sufficient to meet the case. — Mr. Brookfield said according to the Aot a duplicate penalty should be inflicted,' however small they might be. — His Wor- ' ship said the defendant would have to pay £18 penalty, and a further fine of £5, with £3 la. costs. — The'defendant'paid the penalty stated during the day. ii » / - » • Bkraoh o* THS-MuNioirii Polios Aor, 1866. — Michael Murphy and Edward Kelly were charged on the information 'of Sergeant Eve 1 nr with committing a breach of the 3rd sub-section, of the sth section of this Act, by riding on horseback upon the footpath in the Karangahape Road. Kelly pleaded guilty, and Murphy not guilty. — Mr. Sheehan appeared for the prosecution. — Mr. Commissioner Naughton said there was a charge against Joseph Mulligan for a similar offence, committed at the same time. He had been summoned but did not appear.— Mr. James Russell appeared for Mulligan. — Alexander Black proved the signature of Mr. Allan Baillie, Warden of the Thames Court; to the affidavit of tbe service of summons. — Mr. Bussell objected to the summons, as there were erasures and interlineations which were not initialed.— His Worship said the alterations were' only made in the printed form, which the Act admitted. — Mr. Russell asked for an adjournment of the case as against Mulligan until Tuesday next. — Mr. Sheehan said some grounds should be shown for 1 an adjournment. — Mr. Bussell said he had been informed that Mulligan would be present, and that he had a good defence to the action. — Mr. Sheehan said he was instructed that Mulligan was the ringleader, and he (Mr. Sheehan) would not consent to an adjournment. — The case against Murphy and Mulligan was proceeded with separately. — Alexander Black and another witness named Wood proved that the defendants rode on the footpath opposite the Congregational Chapel during divine service, on Sunday evening, 22nd March. They created a great disturbance, and endangered [the lives of a number of children who were on the footpath. Murphy was intoxicated, and used abusive language.— His Worship fined Murphy £5 and costs. — The defendant ■aid he was unable to Day the fine. — He was sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment, with hard labour. Mulligan was fined £5 and costs, with the alternative of six weeks' imprisonment j and Kelly was fined 603., with the alternative of four weeks' imprisonment. [Mr. Mulligan, who returned from the Thames last evening, has requested us to state that, owing to the steamers not leaving Shortland as advertised, he was unable to be present with his witnesses at the hearing of the above case.] The Court then rose.