PRESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 616, 14 September 1867, Page 4

PRESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before G-. G. EitzGerald, Esq., E.M.) Fbiday, Septembeb 13.

Dbunk and Disobdebly. — JohnFitzGerald and Thomas Beveridge were each fined Ll or to be imprisoned for fortyeight hours in default of payment. They were also lined Ll, with the usual alternative, for assaulting and resisting the police. A further charge of wilful destruction of Government property was preferred against these two men. The former was charged with destroying the jumper of the Sergeant who arrested him for which he was fined 10s, and ordered to pay L 3 7s 6d for the property destroyed, or in default to be imprisoned for four days ; and the latter with destroying the waterproof belonging to another constable, a similar fine was inflicted, and he was ordered to pay L 2 for the damaged waterproof, with the option of four days imprisonment in default of payment. Bbbachof Police Obdinance. — Wm. Christian and Win. Thompson were charged by the police with, on the 4th inst., excavating beneath the surface of the road from Hokitika to the Kanieri, they having no authority for so doing. Mr Harvey appeared for the defendants. It was denied by the defendants that they had removed certain gravel, Mr Harvey contended that the place from where the gravely had been taken was not a road. A constable was called, and stated that the gravel had been removed within 1 100 feet or so of the river bank. He had not measured it. The Inspector of Police stated that some time back a Proclamation was issued, notifying that all land within two chains of any river was reserved as roadway. His Worship adjourned the case till the following day, in order that evidence might be adduced from the Survey Office, as to whether it was a road or not.

Assault. — Two informations laid, the one by Samuel Thomas against Arthur Steady, and the other' by Thomas Enock against John Duncan, were dismissed. In the former case neither party appeared ; in the latter both complainant and defendant answered to their names, but from the unsatisfactory manner in which the complainant gave his evidence, there was not the slightest doubt that he had been " laying in the sun." Fanny More, charged on the information of Hannah Pickles, failing to answer to her name, §> warrant was ordered to issue for her arrest.

CIVIL CASES

Taviner v. Hokitika and Greymouth Tr.imway Company.— This "case was adjourned on the 12th inst. (when the evidence of the plaintiff was taken) till to: day.— Mr Harvey asked leave of the Court to recall the plaintiff, who, on being fluestioned by Mr Harvey, stated that he sad been engaged as a contractor off and pn /or the last thirteen years. As a boy he was employed in a barber's shop. Witness at times followed his calling as a barber. He worked at the "trade in America m 1852, —^Tohn Seter deposed that

he was a laborer. He had been employed by the plaintiff on the Aralmra Tramway sometime in th» month of July. — Crossexamined by Mr Harvey— Witness saw the level* altered by the plaintiff. Plaintiff knocked one rod down with an axe. Witness would not swear that the stick plaintiff drove down with an axe had been put up to point out ihe level. This closed the plaintiff's case.— Mr Harvey called John Trenery, who stated that he was a builder. He was Manager of the Hokitika and Greymouth Tramway Company, when the plaintiff undertook to perform certain work. Witness is not the Manager of tramway now. He laid off the work. He put in pegs or rods to guide the contractor whoever he might be. After the plaintiff had taken the contract, witness went over the ground with him. The pegs where then at their proper level, but they were afterwards altered. The embankment was to be made in a line between these two pegs, and level with them. Witness measured the work, and accompanied the plaintiff afterwards to the office. He complained of the work, and told the plaintiff that he had begun at the wrong end, and had not put enough men on. The weather during the first week was very fair. The first week plaintiff had three men at work at one end, and two at the other. The contract was signed on Saturday, the Bth July, and plaintiff went to work on the Monday following. Any person who understood that sort of work could have completed the contract in a fortnight. Witness could not say how many wet days there had been. So far as he could recollect he did not tell the plaintiff that he would extend the time in consequence of the wet weather. When witness put men on to complete the contract, on the 13th of August, the work was not half finished. He never passed any of the plaintiff's work, nor had he given him a certificate. Plaintiff had gone over the whole of the work, but he had not finished it. When witness went over the work on the 13th of August there were only two of the level §egs left that he had put in. and lose two were nine inches lower. Since that time the work had sunk another nine inches. Witness did not raise the levels eighteen inches. Cross-examined by Mr South — Witness did not impute that the contractor had tampered with the levels. After plaintiffs time had expired, he might have finished the work if he had sufficient number of men on. When he gave plaintiff the last certificate, he could not say that he expressed any objection to the work. He found it necessary to be always on the ground as the plaintiff did not understand his work. The first payment was, as near as witness could calculate, 75 per cent on the work done. Witness never brought the embankment up to a level with the pegs at either end. On Monday, the 11th inst., witness told the plaintiff that if he did not complete the work he would put men on to fiuish it. Plaintiff was at work .on Tuesday witli four men ; on the Wednesday he never came, and witness put twenty men on. — Re-examined by Mr Harvey—Plaintiff never complained of not having received 75 per cent. on his work. — His Worship recalled the plaintiff, and in reply to a question put by the Court, he s'atedtliat one of the levels was washed down by the floods, and he replaced it. — His Worship reserved judgment till the following morning. Luks v. Brown. — Adjourned till the 19th inst. The Court was then adjourned till eleven o'clock next day.