POLICE COURT.—Friday.

New Zealand Herald, Volume I, Issue 133, 16 April 1864, Page 5

POLICE COURT.—Friday.

["Before Tho«. Beokham, Esq., R. M.J THREATENING LANGUAGE. The cases of Cheeeeman v. McKinzie and Mayno v. Bnrtl, for abusive and threatening language, were settled, without evidence being gone into. Apologies were mado in open Court, and accepted on the part of the plaintiffs. MtEACH OF THE " UISEASED CATTLE ACT." Robert Kirk was charged by Thomas Spencer, inspector of cattle, with being guilty of a breach of the abovo Act, by driving a held of diseased cattle along a public road, without having a certiiicate from a duly appointed inspector. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr. Wynn, who appeared for tho complainant stated that ho should have been much better pleased if the detendant had engaged some learned counsel to defend him. It was a grievous oflence, and, in-cording to tho Act, he was liable to a heavy penalty, oven as much as £51)0. 'lhe Bench then twice urged upon the defendant tho advisability of engaging counsel on his behalf, and warned him of the serious consequences that would iollow should he bo convicted. Defendant slated that he declined engaging anyone and felt so safe on the ground he stood upon, that he treated the whole matter as a perfect absurdity; he had no witnesses to call. 11 r. AVynn remarked that he was very sorry to see the defendant take such steps, for the evidence he should call would be so conclusive, that defendant must fall in for a heavy penalty. The first witness he would call was— Ihon.as Spencer, sworn, stated : lam attached to the Commissariat, as acting Deputy Commis-sary-General, at Otahuhu, and am also an Inspector unucr the " Diseased Cattle Act." lam acquainted with the disease of pleuro-pneumouia, and have studied it under Professor Simmons, who is a vetcrii.ury surgeon, and a professor in the Koyal Agricultural Society. 1 know the defendant, 1 saw him on the '25th February, about a mile this side of Drury ; 1 had seen him before that. He was in charge oi a large mob of cattle, about 120 head ; they were on the public road, and a boy wts with him assisting. I asked him where he brought the cattle from, and he replied they came from the Fust Tamaki. I then asked him if he had any certiiicate for driving them, and he replied " no, 1 was told to bring the cattle on." The day was very hot, and the cattle had evidently been driven very fast, 1 remarked several of them appeared ailected in their respiration. Here -Mr. Wynn would proceed no further. The fact laid iii the information, namely that defeudaut had driven the cattle along a public thoroughfare, had been clearly prOTed. But, however, he would have it borne hi mind that, if necessary, he could also prove that the cattle were diseased, and that two beasts had to be burnt on that account, which was done by order of the Commissariat. The defendant would then be liable to a still further penalty.

Defendant here stated that ho was not the party who was driving the cattle, and wished to know it (lie .Bench would adjourn the case for him to produce witnesses to prove that. At any rate he thought he was not liable, for lie was only a hired servant of the contractors, and was often sent in charge of cattle from one place to another. His Worship remarked that it was too late for him to ask l'or un adjournment; he had had every leniency shown him, both by the Bench and the learned counsel; he had twice been persuaded to retain a solicitor, but would not, and even Mr. Wynn had slopped the witness in his evidence, not wishing to press the case further. He had laid himself open to a disastrous course—a penalty of £500—and he might rest assured tha* had Mr. "Wynn proved, as he said he could, that the cattle were actually diseased, and had to be destroyed, he should most assuredly have fined him the full penalty. He should now order him to pay a lino of £100. A CAttLESS DBATMAS. George Hove was charged by Constable Jackson, with being guilty of a breach ol the 2nd clause, 17th section of the " Auckland Municipal Police Act," by being at such a distance from bis horse's head, as to have no control over the animal. Defendant pleaded guilty. His "Worship remaiked that it was strango after the publicity that had been given of the previous ebaiges and convictions against carters lor this otlcnce, that there should be so many trunsgiessions. lieiore a nominal fine had bei n iuilicted, hut for the future it should be the lull penalty—£s—which ho should now order the deleudant to pay. j OBSTRUCTING THE PATHWAY. i George Williamson, C. B. Smith, Reuben Witsntski, and P. A. Philips, were charged by Corporal Scott, with a breach ol the 2nd clause, 27th section, of the " Auckland Municipal Police Act," by having sroods &c., exposed in liont of their shop doors, thus obstructing the footpaths. Thov all pleaded guilty. Mr.'"Wvnn who appeared for tho complainant stated that it was only brought forward as a caution to others, and it being tho first information laid under that clause, would he ask for a nominal fine. His AYorship fined them all Is. and costs, remarkin"' that he hoped it would bo a caution to otber shopkeepers ; for every one brought into Court under inloi-mations' of that sort, rendered himself liable to a penalty of £o. ALLEGED LARCENY. Samuel Gooseman was placed at the bar and charged with stealing two omnibus cushions, value .CI. Prisoner pleaded not guilty, and Mr. "Wynn appeared on his behalf. Tho Commissioner of Police here stated that the case could not he gone into, for there was not one title of evidence against him, he being entirely innocent. Mr. Wynn stated that he never saw a more disgraceful case brought into Court; a man was arrested and thrown into gaol for taking his own property. The man must he discharged, and of course the matter could not remain where it was; further action must be taken on the part of defendant. The prosecutor, Charles Ayines, was then called, and he stated that he had nothing to say to condemn the man, or any evidence to prove that he stole the cushions. Mr. Rogers had engaged him to drive the 'bus, and soon afterwards he missed the cushions ; thinking they were Mr. Rogers, he took nut the warrant against defendant. But as Mr. Rogers had since said that the cushions were not his, but belonged to the prisoner, of course he could pot proceed with the prosecution. The prosecutor was then told that he had heen rather hastv, and acted wrongly by imprisoning an innoctnt man, and perhaps severely damaging his character, through not being sure of what he had actually done, and was strongly advised not to act so again. Gooseman was discharged. CONTEMPT OP COURT. On Thursday last, during the business of the Court, a man named Callaghan, who was a little inebriated, created an uproar in open Court, and was afterwards fined £o or seven days' hard labour, for so offending. Yesterday morning a man named George Warhurton was sentenced to the same penalty, for repeating tho experiment.

SABBATARIANISM. [From the " Time*." J Among the things wheh are lawfol bat not expedient is the attempt to extend tho operation of a statutewlion the tendency of public opinion is in a contrary detection. This error was committed by the Ather-» ton Bench of Magistrate?, under the advice of our old correspondent, Mr. Marsh, when they imposed: penalties upon several persons for "saving" hay oa, a Sunday, and ordered thorn to bo roco rored by distress. Nobody could deny that tho -words of tho Lord's-day Act, prohibiting any " tradesman, art' ificor, workman, labourer, or other person whatsoever," from doing any worldly labour, business, or work of his ordinary calling upon that day, and recognizing no exception but " works of necessity and charity," might be plausibly interpreted so as to interdict even tho taking an ox or an ass out of a pit. Many people belioved that the zealous justices of the peace had acted within the letter of the law, while almost all were indignant that they should have strained it on the wrong side and on a very inopportune occasion. There are ancient but unrepealed enactment*, against scandalum magnatum, founded on the principle that words which might be innocently spoken of ordinary citizens amount to a heinous crime when uttered in derogation of a nobleman. It is still competent, we believe, for any one who pleases to revive this obsolete proceeding, and for any judge who may try tho case to punish the audacious offender with imprisonment. The reason why it is never done ia partly that it would not increase the popularity or conduce to tho stability of the order thus privileged, and partly that judges and juries would do their best to discourage it. A very similar reason may be given for using tho utmost caution in enforcing the statute of Charles 11. The principle of it, indeed, is oua that we should be BOrry to disturb, but the application of it is beset with such difficulties that the wisest advocate<- of Sunday observance would bo the bust to avail themselves of its provision* too frequently. They would prefer to overlook, it not to tolerate, many irregularities, rather than imperil the greater interest of Christian morality by awakening a spirit of resistance to legislation on matters of conscience. It was for shutting their eyes to this view, quite as much as for what savoured of oppressive severity towards poor men, that these Lancashire magistrates wero blamed, but the strict legality of their act was too readily assumed.

it is highly satisfactory to find that in the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench their construction of the statute, in one case at least, was not only harsh, but untenable. Our readers may remember that one of the defendants, named Clewooth, was a farmer, while others were neighbours or labourers assisting him in getting in his hay. The point raised last Thursday, upon the argument of tho rule for a certiorari, was as to tho jurisdiction of the magistrates over a farmer who happened to be working in his own field. Tho Court held unanimously that the statute gives no jurisdiction, that a farmer is not a farmer is not a " workman" or "labourer" by reason of his taking up a pitchfork to turn over his hay, and that ho is not included within tho general expression, " other person whatsoever," inasmuch as that expression must be limited, according to a well known rule of law, to person rjuidcm generis with those previously specified. It was evident that farmers could not bo distinguished from the rest on the ground that they do not receive wages, for the same may be said of tradesmen, who aro expressly mentioned. On the other hand, the fact that farmers are not mentioned, while tradesmen are, is in itself a presumption against their being in the contemplation of the Legislature; and it may, perhaps, bo doubted, though the exception was net taken by the Soliritor General, whether a " tradesman" in the seventeenth century was not rather a Fmall shopkeeper dealing in his own waits than an employer of " labour." It is certainly an absurdity thatthe labourer may bo convicted, while the master, unless a "tradesman" exercisinghis" ordinary calling, may superintend bis work with impunity ; but this absurdity is not so groat as that involved in the construction for Mr. Hellish contended on behalf of tho respondents. The class of fanners, as Mr. Justice Blackburn observed, was even of greater importance when the Act was passed than it is now, and included most of the country squires who filled the benches of the House of Commons itself. It is incredible that these gentlemen, whose Sunday occupations and amusements are described in the pages of Evelyn and Pepys, could have intended to debar themselves from such acts as that for which Clewoith was condemned. We must rather believe, with

the learned Judges of the Queen's Bench, that the statute was " aimed at the humbler orders,'' while the better classes were purposely left exempt from its operation. Whatever may bo the consequences of such an interpretation, it is the least inconsistent that can be put upon it, and shows how impolitic it is to thrust it into prcminenco. One Judge alter another suggested a new illustration of its practical inefficiency. There are many processes of manufacture which go on, more or less, on Sunday, because the total suspension of them would occasion sorious loss on Monday—are these works of " necessity f" Ships on the high seas do not lie to on Sundays, but continue their course—is tho work done by the sailors on these days a " necessity ?" Such instances might bo multiplied indefinitely, but they could not carry tho argument further than tho good sense of the Christian public would carry it without them. The truth is, that the cause which wo must presume the Athertun censors liave at heart is one that can gain little by a recurrence to the history of the subject. We in ed not here dwell on the repeated protests of the Divine Founder of Christianity against Sabbatical doctrines, which, though pharisaical, were less sweeping than Uiobo of the Scotch Presbyterians or the English Puritans. We need not quote St. Paul's emphatic assertion of Christian liberty in respect of Sabbaths, as well as of new moons and other ceremonial ordinances. Wo need not refer to the entire absence of authority among the Fathers for tho so-called institution of the " Christian Sabbath." It is not to the practice of tho early Church, but to the great leaders of the Reformation, that a Protestant generally looks for an exposition of Christian duties. He will search the works of these eminent divines in vain for any Sabbatarian theories. It is notorious that Luther requdiated in his bold way the very notion of resting tho obligation of Sunday upon a judaical basis. Calvin w*s found by Knox playing at bowls on that day, and shared with the other Reformers of the Geneva School the most liberal views respecting it. Cranmer did not go so far as many other Protestant theolr gians of his age, but he was not a Sabbatarian. Before the reign of Elizabeth, it will be difficult to find any trace of the dogmatism which identifies the Lord's-day with the Sabbath. In this very reign a Royal injunction clashes it with the other festivals of the Church, and rebukes those who "superstitiously abstain from working" upon any of these holydays." In the next the Book of Sports was issued by tho King's authority.allowingai.dencouraging lawful games after Divine service. It was republished by Charles 1., in spite of the growing power of the Puritans, and though we mutt fain conless the superiority of these fanatics to the Cavaliers in morality, we may lament that it was not these, but the narrowest feature of their system, which left the deepest impress on the nation. It is strange that the licentious age of Charles 11., when the restraints of religion and even of decency were so lightly broken,, should have witnessed the passing of a stringent" Act lor the better observation of the Lord's-day." Tho object of that Act, however, apart from the motives or opinions of its framers, is excellent, so far as it guarantees a day for rest and the opportunity of religious instruction for the busy population of thia country. Cases might arise, though we trust on every ground they may not, in which it would be a duty to put its provisions in force; but, considering the delicacy as well as the importance of the question which it touches, it is in the last degree imprudent to provoke a needless discussion on Mr. Mills's proposition, "that all legislation in respect to Sunday is an illegitimate interference with tho liberty of the individual."