TEE HAMILTON BRIDGE CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6001, 10 February 1881, Page 5

TEE HAMILTON BRIDGE CASE.

[by TELEGRAPH. OWN CORRESPONDENT.]

Hamilton, Wednesday evening. At the Police Court to-day, before Mr. Northeroft, R.M., and Mr. John Knox, J.P., H. J. Paton pleaded guilty to driving a vehicle, contrary to the borough by-laws, without lamps, on the night of Sunday, the 3rd January. He was dismissed with a caution. C. E. Pearson was charged with having, on the night of the 31st January, injured a padlock on the toll-gate of the Waikato bridge, the property of the borough. Mr. Hay appeared for the accused. J. M. Gelling, Town Clerk, proved the property of the borough in the injured lock. Mr. Hay here objected to the Mayor sitting on the bench, and Mr. Knox retired. James Daly, collector at the bridge, deposed that he locked the gate a few minutes after 10 p.m. on the Sunday night and went to bed. Heard what he thought horses coming over the bridge. When half-way across the bridge one of the occupants of the vehicle called to open. He shortly called again, and witness answered them. They called again. When they arrived at the gate accused jumped out of the conveyance, went to the gate, and witness heard him lift off the latch from' the top of the gate. He also heard some one in the conveyance say, "If you give the gate a good pull back at the bottom it will come away." Witness came out at this moment. Defendant was the one at the gate. The gate was securely locked, and the lock in order. The lock was injured as now. It would take one and a half minutes to come to the from the middle of the bridge. The time for lockin" the gate is left to my discretion. The gates are locked all night by order of the Council. It takes me half a minute to a minute to throw my clothes on and come out. It was not a dark night. H. J. Paton deposed that he was in company with defendant and Mr. Brock, solicitor. They left Hamilton after 10 p.m. The gate was shut. Could aot swear whether it was locked. Called two or three times for the toilcollector. About a minute or a minute and a hali passed after arriving at the gate and getting through. Asked Pearson to get out and open the gate. Did not hear the remark referred to by the previous witness. To the best of my belief it was not said. To the Court: About two minutes elapsed fiom tne first calling out to the toll collector coming out. He was positive nothing was said about wrenching the gate. Mr. Hay objected to the by-laws being put in in evidence, as there was no proof of the seal being the common seal of the borough. The objection was reserved by the Court. For the defence C. E. Pearson, the defendant, a farmer, residing at Hautapu, was examined. He swore positively that nobody told him to wrench the lock. Mr. Hay stated that he telegraphed to Mr. Brock, but he had not had time to come. The Court thought the weight of evidence rested with the defence. Possibly the lock might have been broken between the time of the collector going to bed and the defendant coming up. The, Court therefore dismissed the case. Mr. Hay's application for costs was refused.