MALICIOUS INJURY TO PROPERTY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4164, 25 August 1881, Page 3

MALICIOUS INJURY TO PROPERTY.

The "Libbbty" Cask

Tho charge was heard at 330 p.m., when Mr Broham called the following witnesses :— James Dunlop deposed : lam one of tke proprietors of the Liberty. On Thursday, August 18, the three defendants came to the Liberty office, about 3 o'clock in the afternoon. They enquired for the editor. I told them ho was nol in. They then said they desired to see him relative to some para* graphs that had appeared in the Liberty One of them pointed to a pariicular paragraph. When I told them that Mr Moßley waa not in, they said they did not mind waiting for come time. Mr Mosley did not put in an appearance, and I told them I did not think he would come. The defendants thtn walked into the composing room. I sent an errand boy to see if Mr Mosley was at home. The answer returned was to the effect that he was not in. I then repeatt d that I did not think he would come. Thereupon Mr Hos.»ack eaid he must have sat if faction, and deliberately walked forward to the " bulk" and upset the " galleys" lying on it which contained matter ready for publication. I went down stairs to open the street door, and the police came up and arreated him. Did not observe the other defendants do at yltiing. The contents of eight large "galleys" and two smaller ones were overturned on the floor altogether. The amonnt of damage done, a* estimated by Mr Willis and myself, was £15 lis Gd. A quantity of type was damaged by being trampled on after it was thrown on. the floor. James Willis, James Parry, and myself are the proprietors of the Liberty.

. Cross-examined: The estimate of the amount of damage done was made up as follows : — Value of the " composition " or setting-up of tbe type upset, £4 2* 6d j tjrpe destroyed by K ing trampled on, 15s j sorting and distributi g the type upset, £i 10b ; to sort type spi. . into other "ca*es," £12s; one "news galiey" broken, 4s 6d ; coßt incurred in borrowing type in order to publish the paper, £4 17b 6d; total, £15 lis 6d. Would ewear that the defendants had trampled on the type on the floor. Some of Liberty employees might have destroyed type by trampling on it. There were three kinds of type mixed together, and it would take a man a week (48 hours) to sort it so as to be fit for übo.

To the Bench : The employees who trampled on the type wero endeavouring to prevent the defendants from doing further damage. There were nine or ten columns of composition destroyed at a cost of 6s 6d per column.

James Willis, part proprietor of ihe Liberty, gave corroborative evidence. Hossack and Blackett were the principal actors, and Sansom was urging them on.

George Gerard, a compositor employed at the Liberty oflice, also corroborated tbe previous statements. The defendants had. demanded the "-ames of the writers of oertain paragraphs tb>:' had appeared in the Liberty. The defendant Hossack had overthrown the type in the com posing room while the others kept guard vu.h their sticks. There was a scuffle betweui tke compositors and tho defendants, and then the police arrived on the scene.

Frederick Charles Gerard and Joida Thomaa aleo gave evidence confirmatory of the foregoing statements.

Mr Stringer addressed the Bench for the defence. If necessary he oould have caUed evidence to show something of the nature of the paragraphs complained of, and would have shown that they were of an unjustifiable character, [and such as were calculated to provoke the defendants. The learned gentleman spoke in no measured terms of the Liberty, whioh he described " a very scavenger of newspapers." He would submit that the present was not an indictable offenoe under seotion 51 of the " Malicious Injuries to Property Aot, 1867," as the aotual injuij done did not, on the complainants' own showing, amount to more than 19s 6d, the amount of the two itema for type destroyed, and the broken gaUe.i. The remaining items were simply for losb incurred through the defendants' action, which he admitted was a wrong one, yet it could not be regarded as injury to property in the meaning of the Act, seeing that there had only been a disarrangement of the type, and no aotual damage had been done to the greater part of it. The learned oounsel quoted authorities to show that, in estimating damages, only the " aotual damage done " should be considered, and not any " consequential injuries " result* ing from the offenders' aot. He would Bubmit that the offence could be dealt with ■ummarily under section 52. It had not been shown in the evidence that the actual damage done to the type was caused wilfully by the defendants, but only that the type had been trampled on partly by defendants and partly by employees in the office, and it wae only the question of this " aotual damage," he submitted, that the Bench bad to consider. The other items should be recovered by oivil prooess. The Benoh were unanimously of opinion that the offence would come under section 61 of the Malicious Injuries to Property Act, and would hold that the gaUeys of typo thrown down were property destroyed. They would, however, deal with the case summarily, as they felt that it was quite neceaaary to put a stop to such proceedings as those of the defendants. Though far from having any sympathy with the Liberty, they must take measures to preserve order in the town. It was fortunate for the defendants that Mr Stringer had made such an able defence, or they would in aU probability have been committed for trial. Hossack would be fined £6, Blackett £3, and Sansom £3, and the defendants would have to contribute £4 4% 6d to pay for the damage done.

Superintendent Broham stated that the charge of assault against John Hossack had boen withdraw n by the complainant.

Dangbbb of Tobpbdo Boats.— lf, remarks the London Telegraph, it appears from the history of the operations off Callao that a proporly equipped naval force, though composed of a moderate number of ships, may maintain tbe effective blockade of a far from despicably fortifiod seaport — a doduotion which may be commended to the notice of those who bewail the insufficiency of the British navy — a special danger to which torpedo-boats are liable has also been revealed. Earlior craft of tbo kind were known to have, as it were, au embarrassing tcndenoy to commit suicide, and with their own destruction bring about that of their crews. Later experience, however, seemed to show that the modern torpedo- ooat, as con* structod within the last threo or four years, wai proof againat this danger. Nevertheless, a swift boat of the kind built by a celebrated English maker was destroyed by ber own torpedo — not, it must be stated, until she had funk her antagonist. The forniPr was sent in at night by the Cliilmue, una suddenly came upon a Peruvian guard-boat— an ordinary man-of-war's steam-launch, uleo provided with torpedoes besides tho usual armament. The ChUian rushed at this boat, and got s torpedo on the end of its long polo ready for action. Bofore, however, it protruded, nautici was " rigged out," far enough, it reached the Peruvian, and, being sot in action, exploded and blow up both boats. Tho greater part of tho crows escaped, somo to tho shore on pieces of wreck ; others to another Chilian boat, attracted to the apat by the noise of ths> explosion. Still, the loss waa serious.