RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 1882, 14 January 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT

THIS DAY. (Before W. Fbaseb, Esq., 8.M.)

BREACH OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACT.

John Brown was«?hargedwithabreaoh of the above act, having neglected to procure the vaccination of his child, John Joseph Brown. ':'.•••'

"This ease was adjourned from the 16th instant.

Defendant pleaded not-guilty. Mr Power- said he was under the impression that the case against the Publio Vaccinator should hare been brought on first, in order to ascer;ain*who was liable in tlie cases of those who were charged with neglecting to procure vaccination for their children.

His Worship told- the defendant to stand down, and the next caie. -wai brought on, being—

CHARGE AGAINST "Dli. LETHBRIDGE.

Chas. F. Leth bridge wai charged with a breach of the Public Health Act, 1^72, by neglecting to transmit the certificate of successful vaccination of Catherine Mcllhone. v< ■ Mr Tyler appeared for defendant. He asked for an adjournment of the case: upon the following grounds. Some four days before the summons was served upon l)r Lethbridge that gentleman made application to the Hospital Committee (of which ihe informer in this case was a member) for two months' leave of absence. Mr JKenshaw moved that the permission should be granted, and the motion was seconded by the informer. Subsequently, to this (and just previous to the departure of Dr lethbridge) Mr Power served the summons. It was not served upon, him personally, but was left with his servant, and the fact had only come to his knowledge an hour before he went. Dr Lethbridge left the summons with him (Mr Tyler) to ask for an adjournment. There could be only one of two reasons for the action taken by the Vaccination inspector to make, the defendant appear on the 14th of January : either to snatch a conviction, or to harrass and annoy him while he was away. '

niiuc lie was ana)! His Worship thought the summons had been issued with the view of getting at the truth of the matter, and to relieve the other persons charged from suspense. Mr Tyler said surely Mr Power understood that Dr Lethbridge could not be here at the time he had summoned him to appear. It seemed.that it.wit hoped to obtain a conviction in hii absence. . - His Worship apprehended that Mr Power had simply acted with a view of ascertaining who was right and who wrong, and to see the Act carried out properly. Of course he (His Worship) would grant the adjournment. Mr Power did not see why an injustice would be done by proceeding with the case. His object was only to clear matters. .He did not even wish to presi for a fine, which was sufficient to show . that he was not actuated by spite, or any ridiculous nonsense of that kind which Mr Tyler had accused him of. He considered the remarks made by defendant's counsel were very much out of place. An adjournment was granted to the Bth of March. This necessitated the postponement of the other two cases which were adjourned to the same date. ANOTHER CASE. Jobn Hendy was charged with having neglected to procure the vaccination of his child Patrick John Hendy. Adjourned to Bth March. PEBMITTING A HORSE TO WANDER

Wm. Baker was charged with allowing one horse to wander.

Defendant did not appear. * Mr Sullen said the defendant was absent in Auckland since the service of the summons, and he therefore asked for an adjournment.

Adjourned for a week. : ' Mr Baker subsequently appeared, and pleaded guilty. Fined 2s 6d and costs. W EMBEZZLEMENT. William Bankhead was charged that on or about the 30th of December, 1874, at Dairy, being then the servant of one Hamilton Quinn, he did receive and take into his possession for and on account of the said Hamilton Quinn, his master, th* sum of two pounds seventeen shillings and eightpence, and the same feloniously and fraudulently embezzle. . , The prisoner—who was a respectable intelligent-looking young man —said ho was not in the employ of Quinn at the time, but pleaded guilty to th« charge of having taken the money. Mr Bullen said that on the morning of the 30th, the prisoner had been sent by Quinn to Drury for the purpose of collecting £1 17s 8d and #1, but, instead of returning, he had decamped with the money to the Thames, Prisoner said he had been lodging with Quinn for six months, and though working for him, had never received a : farthing during that time. Quinn had promised to do something for him, but had kept him on for six months without remuneration, and that was what tempted him to take the money. He stated that he was a native of Edinburgh, and had not long been in the Colony, having come.

but in the Northern Castle. His father paid k\s passage money. Mr Sullen referred His Worship to, the summary conviction clauses bt. the Act.' He stated that when this young man first made his appearance, attention was drawn to him by his going to public houses and running up scores which he had not the money to pay. He had been in the company of the celebrated Dt Brown, and had accused the latter person of stealing money from him, but he (Mr Bullen) had since ascertained that there was no ground whatever for the^charge. Mia Worship told prisoner it was a terf^Sis thing for a young man like him to be guilty of such an offence, which would ruin his prospects, if ever he had Ihe prisoner said he was extremely sorry that he had yielded to temptation, and was prepared to undergo any punishment that might be inflicted.. His Worship said he could not, in justice to the-community; impose a less penalty upon him than three months' imprisonment with hard labor, The Court adjourned.