MAGISTERIAL.

Timaru Herald, Volume L, Issue 4828, 26 April 1890, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

TlMAßTT— Feidax, April 25. (Before 0. A. Wray, Esq., S.M.) TRESPASS CASE. On the case F. O. Mathows v. P. Daly for unlawfully demanding excessive trespass rates he (Duly) not being entitled to such rates, being called on, Mr Hay said that the matter had been settled and he asked for leave to withdraw the summons. Bis V> orship allowed thia. BBEAOH OP BAHrtVAY BY-tAW. J. Hammond was charged on remaud with breaoh of by-law No. 22 of tho Now Zealand Railways by plying for hiro within the railva.y premises at Timaru without a licence. Sergeant-Major Mason appeared to prosecute, and said that defendant had a license as a driver m the borough, but ho had no license from tho department to ply for hire on tho railway promises. He called the head porter who said that on the 12th of last month defendant came up to the Bouthern platform with hia express and on being informed that ho was doing wrong would not go away. Witness did, not sco dofendant bring anything. On being told that he could not ply at the platform, defendant said that they had better fence m where the vehicles would have to stand. < To Mr Hay : I did not see Hammond asking for hire. Tho 4.25 p.m. train aoutlr was standing at the platform at the time. Mr Joseph Jones, statioonißßter, corroborated the porter's evidence. Hammond, he said, was not licensed by tho department, und had no right at the platform. To Mr Hay : I did not see any parcels. The proper express stand is a little distance from this platforra. I did not sco Hammond soliciting or asking for employment. Constable Thoroau also gavo corroborativo evidence Xhis was the case, and Mr Hay said that the oarriers generally wished for an interpretation of tho by-law named. Tho fee from the department was only 10s, scarcely worth contesting, but the carriers desired to know how far they could go without this license. Mr Hay then stated what defendant had done on the day m question. Ho had goue to the station to get a parcel for Mr Meason, and that he (Mr Hay) submitted was not plying for hire within the meaning of the by-law. Plying for hiro was where a man entered into a, contract for hire or held himself out as a person willing to do so. Hammond bad a Borough license and he submitted that the railway authorities had no right to say " you cannot move over on inch, of our ground." Defendant did not form m lino as some of tho other expressmen did, but took casual work. Mr Hay further submitted that the charge of plying for hiro within the railway premisfs did not apply m a case unless the plying was m part of a building or enclosure. Further he submitted that under the statulo the department had no authority to make such by-law. Sections 127 and 141 of tho Public Workß Act defined traffic on railway premises. lio had no authorities to quote m support, but it had been held m Dunodin on the authority of tiir Robert Stout (so Mr Huy was told by the carriers), that carriers could go as near tho railways as they liked so long as they did not go inside any enclosure. His Worship dismissed tho case, dociding that there was no ovidenco of plying for hire within the mcaningtfuf the by-law. His Worship gave no expi vision of opinion as to whether " withiu the railway premises " includes the thoroughfare opposite the Btation. TJNBEGIsrBBBD DOGB. Thomas Wilson, James Hilton; J. Ellis, X. Hawker, 'X. Yelland, and^Albert I'rnssor wore fined 10s, and D. fl. Brfwn 20s, tho former for having one unregistered dog each, and tho latter for having two unregißte^e^ doge. Tho cases against W. Gilchrisc and J. Davidson wore dismissed. OATTLE AT LAJ'IE. The police charged D. i '-<y of Wai-iti with having one corejjind three calves at large on tho 14th Aprif*!md after hearing the evidence of Constablo Pascoe His Worship let the accused off with a severe caution. He warned Mra Kelly who appeared not to let the cattle stray m future A BOW OVEE A SWEETtIEAnT. Frank Hall charged Frank O'Jlorke with assaulting and beating him on tho lUtli AprilAccused pleaded " guilty with provocation," Mr Hay appeared for complainant, and asked His Worship to hear the facts of the case. Shortly told theso are as follows. Last Saturday night Hall was at tho Commercial Hotel -when O'Korke came m, and culled him into tho passage. Hall went out and O'Rorke asked him what ho had besn sayiog to a certain young woman about him. Hall replied " nothing." Defendant thereupon used a strong expression, and knocked Hall down two or three times until ho was quite dazed. Complainant never struck a blow nor had he said anything to any young [woman about O'Rorko. Defendant's story was that Hall on getting out into the passage called him a "liar" and that then ho (O'Korke) knocked him dotTii. Defendant denied that ho was fond of ÜBing bis hands or had used thorn that eveniDg at tho Royal hotel. There was no jealousy betweon them ovor "thj young lady," and defendant was quite suro that though ho had hit complainont under tho jaw, he had not struck him when down. His Worship found that an assault bad been committed, and fined O'Rorke 20s and costs (solicitor's and three witnesses). Tho Court roso ut 12.25 p m.