POLICE COURT.

Colonist, Issue 73, 2 July 1858, Page 3

POLICE COURT.

Friday, June 25. Before John Povnter, Esq., Resident Magistrate, D. Sinclair, Esq., J.P., R. K. Newcome, Esq., J.P., and J. Mackay, Esq., J.P. Adjourned Case. —Master of the Camilla v,' 7 Seamen. —The Bench in delivering judgment said they could not find in the circumstances of the case any sufficient reason for the men leaving the ship.. They had observed that the men seemed to he in good health, and that it was most important that those who had agreed to bind themselves to a certain labor for a period, should be kept to their contract. The interests of the ownere, merchants, and all concerned in the ship, required that they giye due consideration to both sides of any question similar to the present. The master had since their last hearing resigned his command, and another commander would he appointed. One of the seamen here remarked that this made the third time that Captain Macdonald had resigned, and as he had in each previous instance resumed it, they wished to know what guarantee they conld have that a new master should be appointed, the ship made sea worthy, and the forecastle altered to meet the requirements of the act. The worthy Magistrate here said that they could take no notice of any thing but the case put before them. The crew had the assurance of five gentlemen, that a new commander would be appointed, and that they must either return to their work or suffer the full penalty of six months' imprisonment. The men after consulting'with-their counsel for a few minutes, agreed tol'eturn to their duty.

Thompson v. Macdonald.—This ca3e was an information laid by Mr. Thomas Thompson against Captain Macdonald, under the Passengers' Act, for breach of contract in not supplying him with the stipulated amount of provisions, water, &c, during his passage from London to this port. Mr. Travers in opening the case for the plaintiff' stated that he had the choice of bringing this matter before judicial notice in two ways,—one under the General Carriers' Act, and another the way which he had preferred, that of suing under the Passengers' Act. He was, he said, well aware that his learned friend for the defendant would attempt to argue that the barque Camilla did not come within the provisions of the Passengers' Act, but he hoped to_ prove to the satisfaction of the Magistrates, that the case was one which justified the passengers in proceeding under that Act. He should be able to shew that although they were all classed as cabin passengers, they were merely so called to enable the owner and charterers to avoid the responsibility which attached to them. He produced first an advertisement in red and black inks, describing the Camilla as one of a line of passenger ships, and giving a dietary scale according to which the passengers should receive their provisions while on the passage. He then also produced a Government form of contract ticket, filled up in London by the charterers, and given by them to Mr.: Thompson at the time he paid for his passage; and again, he produced a third document which he described as one of the most mysterious he ever had produced in any court, this was a receipt for a much larger s\im of money than had actually been paid, and which was evidently given with a view of defeating the purpose of that clause in the Passengers' Act, which states expressly that' no person shall be deemed a cabin passenger who shall not have paid a sum of not less than .30s. per week for the time computed by the Act of Parliament as the specified length of the voyage. Also, the Act required that the space allotted to each cabin passenger should be 36 superficial feet to each adult to their exclusive use. This provision of the Act he would prove had not been complied with, as well as the fact that while vessels were only allowed to carry. one passenger to each registered 50 tons, the Camilla carried 1.% adults to 283 registered tons, thus giving an excess. The contract had been violated by the fact that they had not received the provisions enumerated in the advertisement, or in the'; Government contract ticket, and that all mcdicabcomforts were entirely wanting. • Mr. Travers then called Mr. John William Tatton,.the surgeon of the ship, who on affirmation stated that the passengers were placed under his charge in London, that the number was 16, equal to 13£ adults. Some had taken their passages as first cabin passengers; some as second. He then enumerated the sizes of the various cabins appropriated to the passengers, when it appeared that no passenger had had the 36 superficial feet mentioned in the Act. They all messed with the captain, shut the provisions were not served out according to the advertised scale.. Mr. Travers then addressed the Bench, and hoped that he had produced sufficient evidence to prove to the satisfaction of the worthy Magistrates that the ship came under the Passenger Act. The Bench, however, declined to giving an answer at this stage, and the examination of Mr. Tatton was continued, who stated that Captain Lean, the Emigration Officer in London, had visited the ship three times in his official capacity, that samples of the provisions had been at his desire submitted to him at London and at Gravesend; that he had at Captain Lean's request shewn him his qualifications and appointments as medical man to the vessel, but he could not state whether Captain Lean had passed the provisions. At this stage of the case the Magistrates withdrew to consider the Act, and on returning stated that they were of opinion that the ship did not come under the Act sued under, and the case was accordingly withdrawn. (We are given to understand that it is the intention of the passengers to proceed under another uct, and that another trial will take place on Monday next, Sth insant.)

Monday, June 28. Before J. Poynter, Esq., Resident Magistrate. Vagrancy.—Frederick Strong was brought before the Court charged with feloniously entering the house of Mr. Clouston, a master mariner, and there behaving himself in such a manner as to seriously alarm his wife, who, we are given to understand, has suffered severely from the fright. As Mr. Clouston was not at home at the time, the case was remanded until Tuesday, for further evidence.

Tuesday, June 29. Frederick Strong, who was remanded for further evidence, was^gain brought up, when Ellen Sloss deposed that the prisoner had entered Mr. Clouston's premises; had walked through the house and finally demanded food with threats, which caused Mrs. Clouston considerable alarm; she had procured assistance and the prisoner was expelled the house.

The prisoner, who appeared not to be quite sane, was kept by the police imtil the worthy Magistrate has an interview with his Honor the Superintendent, about some means of effectually taking care of him.