RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Grey River Argus, Volume XV, Issue 1900, 8 September 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Monday, September 7. (Before W. H. Revell, Esq., R.M.) A miserable and masculine looking female named Williams was charged with being drunk and disorderly the previous night. She was evidently well acquainted with the ways of the Court, for when her name was called she walked into the dock, and almost before she was asked a question admitted she was guilty, but pleaded in extenuation that there were three in her house on Sunday night in the same state as herself, and in trying to get them out the uproar the police complained of occurred. The Magistrate cautioned the defendant, reminding her of her frequent visits to the Court similarly charged, and sentenced her to two weeks' imprison menu, in default of paying a fine of 20s with costs. BREACH OF THE FERRIES REGULATIONS. Patrick and Daniel Trahey, two lads, 14 and 16 years of age respectively, were charged with working a ferry boat on. the Teratnakau River, without being duly licensed. Mr Perkins appeared for the defendants. Captain Allardyce, the Harbormaster of Greymouth appeared to prosecute. The Court inquired by what authority the Harbor-moster appeared. Captain Allerdyce said by his appointment he had jurisdiction over the scene of the alleged offence. The Court requested Captain Allerdyce to produce his appointment, whereupon the Harbor-master requested an adjournment to enable him to procure the document, remarking that he had produced his appointment before in Court, saying that he did not think it necessary to carry it about with him, and stating further that under the 78th clause of the Regulation he had authority to prosecute. The Magistrate, on consulting the "Gazette," decided that as Captain Allerdyce was appointed Harbor- master for the port of Greymouth his jurisdiction was limited to the river, and within two nautical miles north and south of the fairway of the stream. The facts were that a rival boatman named Henry Williams, who produced his license, was crossed over the river by the defendants in their boat, at his own request, and, as he alleged, he paid the defendants one shilling which they demanded and received as the regular fare. He then asked by what right they charged for ferrying passengers, and one of the defendants then threw the shilling away, saying he didn't know what the coin was. The defendants did not produce the license, and after giving them notice he laid the information against them. He was positive he paid tde ferry charge, and that he did not take it back. For the defence it was stated that the defendants held a license virtually, for they paid the license fee some time ago to the proper person at Hokitika, but the permit had not yet been forwarded, and that the Regulations were ultra vires, for the Teremakau not being a port of entry the Superintendent, in granting a license, or assuming the authority to do so, was acting in contravention of the terms of the Marine Act. The Court overruled the latter point, as by an order made by the Governor in Council power is delegated so that suitable vessels may be licensed, subject to the provisions of the Marine Act, for ferryage purposes in any part of the Colony. The evidence of the defendants was taken as to the actual payment. One of the lads said when the money was refusad the informant threw it into the boat, and. the other picked up the shilling and slipped it into Williams's pocket. The youngest of the boys said he was tcazed out of his life by the informant, who told him in confidence that he would '' tie a stone round his neck and drown him in the river." Proof was then given as to the license alleged to be held by the iefeudants. James Noohon, the step- father of the defendants, produced a license in his name to ferry on the river. This permit expired on 30th June, and an application was made for a renewal. The granting this application wa% suspended because of information received by the harbor authorities at Hokitika that the lads Trahey were not competent to work the ferry boat on a dangerous river like the Teremakau. Captain Turnbull, the Harbormaster at Hokitika, came up and took the defendants with him in the boat on the river to test their ability iv working the ferry. The witness alleged Captain Turnbull expressed himself satisfied with the manner in which the lads worked the boat, and considered them competent to hold a license. The license fee was then paid, but no further action had been taken in issuing it. In reply to the informant, the witness would not state positively if Captain Turnbull said the defendants were competent, and that he (the witness) applied for the new license in his own name. His Worship in giving judgment said he had no doubt that licenses such as the defendants were charged with not being in possession of, could be legally issued, but he considered the defendants were not duly licensed. The license held ' by Noonan. expired on 30th June, and. \ as he had paid the fee for a new license i he must, under the circumstances, be < taken to have authority, to ply on the. 3

river. By the regulation, and the terms of his license, the licensee must have personal charge of the ferry-boat, and he was not permitted to allow a substitute to work the boat, except in case of illness and then only by permission of the Harbormaster. His Worship doubted if the Harbor-master would authorise two such boys to ply about on such a river as the Teremakau. The defendants were proved to be guilty of the charge, but in the present case a nominal penalty only would be inflicted. The defendants were then fined 30s, with costs. ; "birds of a feather." Honora Lodge was charged by Mary Ann Rogers with usine; abusive and insulting language towards her on the 28th August. The parties resided near each I other, and, according to the story of the complainant, she was subjected to such annoyance from the defendant that she could endure it no longer, and had to come to court for protection.. It was not an. unusual thing for the defendant to stand at the plaintiff's back-door with a battering-ram in the shape of a brick in one hand, and a dipper full of water in the other. The defendant used to persuade the complainant to come outside with the brick, and when she made her appearance she was saluted with, a, jet de eau from the pitcher and a shower of dead rats from the defendant's children, who seemed as it were to the manner born, and were dead shots ; indeed, if the complainant could be believed, the variety of the missiles ; hurdled at her unoffending head on these occasions comprised every description of what is known as " elec-, tioneering bouquet," from tin kettles and rotten eggs to cabbage-stalks and wooden legs. "•' The defendant abused her in language more forcible than polite, and in such disgustingly personal terms that the inelegant allusions would provoke a saint, but even this didn't " aggravate " her, for she never replied or made the slightest remonstrance. In reply to all this, the defendant made a long statement, the burden oi which was iv quoqxie, for everything with which the complainant charged her," she denied, and in turn accused her neighbor of perpetrating similar atrocities upon herself, inoffensive and unassuring as she was always known to be. There was quite an array of witnesses in the case, among them several respectable-looking females, who have the misfortune to reside in the neighborhood of the parties, and thus became entangled into what must have been to them a painful position. The Magistrate, in disposing of the case, said it was a very peculiar one, and one difficult to deal with. The complainant and the defendant were notoriously bad characters, so bad that they were both a scandal to the community. The complainant's evidence especially, he could not believe, and he would consider the story of the defendant as equally reliable. Several respectful witnesses were dragged into the case to support a trumped-up charge, brought by the complainant to endeavor to have satisfaction from the defendant through the medium of the Court. Either the police force of the town was insufficient for the protection of the public from the annoyance of such as the parties in the case, or the residents of the locality were destitute of self-respect or they would make an effort to bring them before the Bench to dealt with as vagrants. He would now dismiss them, buthe should direct thepolice to keep a strict watch over them, and if they came before the Court again, and a charge such as the one he was now dismissing could be brought home to either of them, they would be dealt with as severely as the law would allow.