RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before T. W. Parker, Esq., R.M., and J. Hassell, Esq., J.P.) CHARGE OF STEALING.

North Otago Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2108, 4 February 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before T. W. Parker, Esq., R.M., and J. Hassell, Esq., J.P.) CHARGE OF STEALING.

Bertha M'Gavan, on bail, was charged with stealing a black and white shawl and other articles, the property of one Robert Keenan. Inspector Thomson condncted the prosecution, and Mr Balmer Appeared for the defence. The prosecution called Eliza Keenan, wife of the prosecutor, who deposed that she had missed the articles alleged to have been stolen, and had informed her husband, who laid the matter before the police. Sergeant Beatty, sworn, deposed : He arrested prisoner, and went with her to the residence of Keenan. They then went to the girl's rodtn, and on searching her box they found therein tome of the articles which were missed. In answer to witness, the girl said somebody must have placed the things in her box. I In cross-examination, witness satd that accused showed some surprise when he | asked her to go with him. Mr Balmer, in addressing the Bench | for the defence, pointed out how inconsistent the evidence wm, and contended that some one had put tho articles in the box. The Magistrate said there appeared to be a doubt as to whether the articles wero really stolen, and he would give the accused the benefit of it, and discharge her.

DETAINING A BOX. The accused in the last case charged Keenan with unlawfully detaining a box belonging to her. Mr Balmer appeared for the prosecution, and Mr O'Meagher for the defence. The complainant deposed that she had been in the employ of Keenan for about three months, when she was discharged, but her box was detained. She set down its value at Ll5. Mr O'Meagher said no application had been made by the plaintiff for the box, which had besides formed the subject of another action. Counsel claimed, therefore, that the case should be dismissed. His Worship dismissed the information.

ACTIOX FOR DAMAGES. In tho cue Clydeidale v. Grant, th«. Magistrate assessed tKo damages at LlO, with co«U LO 14s. BREACHES Of MUNICIPAL BT-LAWR.

John Hardy viu charged, on the information of the Inspector of Nuiunces, with permitting a nuisance to exist on his property in Wear street. On Mr Hardy stating that the nuisance had been abated, the action was withdrawn. John Roberts was charged, by the Inspector of Nuisances, with creating a nuisance in his back yard. This charge was also withdrawn, on defendant stating that the cause of the nuisance had been removed.

STRAY CATTLE M. Reid, for driving two cows through Reed street during prohibited hours, was fined 7« ; and David Heron, for allowing three cows to wander in Reed street, was fined 9a.

ALLEGED DAMAGE TO PROPERTY. Archibald M'lnnes, of Otepopo, was charged with unlawfully and maliciously breaking a certain fence, being the division fence between the Kurihika and Maraweka runs, respectively the properties of the trustee* of the late Charles Fenwick and William Fenwick, contrary Ac. Mr O'Meaijher appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hislop for the defence. After hearing evidenco and counsel, the Magistrate dismissed the case, on the ground that the ownership had not been prated.

BREACH OF RAILWAY KKGULATIOITS. George Short was charged with haying committed a broach of the provisions of the Public Works Act, by driving across a certain level crossing noar the town boundary, when a train was within a mile of such crossing, on the 20th January, ultimo. Inspector Thomson conducted the prosecution, and Mr. O'Moagher defended. The first witness called was, Benjamin Verdon, who deposed : I am an engine driver in the employ of the New Zealand Gorarnment. I remember the 20th of January. On that day, I was driving the engine of the express train from Chriutchuroh to Oamaru. I came near the town belt at about 3.16 p.m. I was standing it my usual place on the engine, and my fireman was with me. I saw a baker's cart approaching the crossing at a rery sharp pace, and sung out to the fireman to apply his brake, which he did promptly. I then sounded the whistle twice, as a warning to the guard to apply his brake, and then reversed my engine. I, however, found it impossible to stop the train in time. The driver of the cart appeared to take no notice of the whistle. When I first saw the cart it was abont 25 yards from the crossing, and I tried all in my power to prevent * collision, The buffer of the engine came into contact with the tack part of the cart When we saw saw that no one in the cart was hurt, the guard gave me the signal to go on again, and we proceeded to the Oamarn station. Upon arrival there an engine was sent out to the scene of the accident, and brought back the defendant. He came to me in the yard, and remarked that it was not his fault Cross-examined by Mr O'Meagher : There are a few gum trees on this side of the crossing (west side). When I first saw the cart the engine was about 40 yards from the crossing. I took every precaution to prevent an accident I blew the whistle abont half a mil* from the crossing up the line, in accordance with my usual custom. The crossing at which the accident occurred is the one north of the Town Belt Station. I could check the speed of the engine rery materially in a distance of 40 yards. The cart was coming at a smart trot, and could not well hare turned round after I saw it. The engine was going at the rate of 13 miles an hour. The evidence of the fireman in the main corroborated that of the enginedriver with regard to the relative posi-

ttoM of the eagioe and cart when the whittle wu blown ; but in cross-examina-tion he iwon tsj* from the time th« train kit Awamoko Jinetion till they reached tW Town B«H no whutle bad been blown. The evidence of the guard, Charles Heaton, wu mainly eorroboratire of the driver's testimony. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Olfesfher, before opemn? the ess* for the other side, drew the Magistrate's tttention to the fact that it had not beer shown in evidence that the crossing was a "level crossing." He looked upon the matter was ono of great importance 111 1 those who travelled across the railway i.nes. He referred to the discrepancy in ' the evidence, and pointed out the necessity for some more efficient means of protection as such crossings as that at the town belt. \n Eugland, all such crossings were provided with gates, and near Christchurch a similar plan had been adopted. He would earnestly reoommend the authorities to provide similar means here. The Act said that no one must cross a line after an approaching train was- within one mile of the crossing. If this strict interpretation were put upon the Act, then it would be necessary to take proceedings every day against the expressmen who cross the railway in Thames street when the train was only a quarter of a mile away. The learned consel humorously referred to the state of things that would exist were the pro* visions of the Act rigidly enforced. Fancy, he said, a row of eipresses waiting patiently at the crossing, each driver anxiously scanning hit time table, and saying to his neighbor, " The train must be near the boundary now ; " '• Now it must be approaching Severn street ; " " There she rounds the corner," etc. He then called James Reid, blacksmith, of Oamara, who deposed that he was a passenger by the down express train on the 20th. He would not swear it, but he was positive that no whistle had been blown from the time the train left Awamoko Junction until they reached the town belt. Andrew Meldrum, a baker, and driver of a baker's cart, deposed that he was in the road when the accident occurred. He was a couple of hundred yards away — about half-way down the road, towards the main road. He heard the train approaching, but did not hear any whistle. Where defendant whs the road is heavily metalled, and he did not think the sound of an approaching train could be heard. The defendant was then put in the witness-box and examined by the Bench. He stated that the train was hidden from him by the trees until he was within 12 yards of the crowing, when it was too late to pull up at the pace at which he was going. He did not hear any whistlo or sound of the train. In reply to a question, he said that if he had been going at a walk, he could have seen the trnin in time to pull up. He had always been in the habit of trotting over the crossing, but would not do so again. The Magistrate said defendant had been travelling so long that he had at last grown careless. Something had keen said with reference to whistling, but there was nothing in the Act making it obligatory on the driver to whistle when approaching a crossing- If the drivers were ordered to signs^ their approach, it was very charitable on the part of the department ; but it must be) remembered that such signal was n«! given for the purpose of warning persons (gainst crossing the line, but to warn anything off the line. Notice boards were provided at each crossing, calling upon everybody to stop and look out for the engine. The defendant hai neglected to taVe this precaution, and was guilty of gross negligenoe. Several cautions had been given through the Court, but with, apparently, no effect He would adjourn the case, to consider the the technical objection raised by the counsel for the defence. The Court then rose.