RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT,

West Coast Times, Issue 700, 21 December 1867, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT,

(Before GK G. FitzGerald, Esq., E.M.) Feiday, Decembee 20. Beeach op Police Ordinance. — Arthur Eeedy was charged on the information of Win. r *JSyilson, sergeant of police, with on the 17th ir.st., encroaching upon a public thoroughfare, north of Revell street by having a building (a piggery) thereon. The sergeant deposed that the piggery was outside the boundary of the town, and about a chain and a half above high water mark. It is in a line with Flaxman's and Dyson's premises, and on the public thoroughfare. Defendant stated that the premises were not Ms pi-operty. He rented them at a rental of 3s a week. He would remove the pigs at once, but the buildings he was not empowered to remove as they were not his property. His Worship adjourned the case till the 21st in order to call witnesses as to the ownership of the premises. A similar case was brought against Alexander Johnston — Sergeant Wilson deposed to having on the 9th inst., given witness notice to remove or to obtain permission from the Goldfields Secretary. The ■witness premises are in a line with Eeedy's. Defendant said he occupied the land under a miner's right. He was not aware he had squatted on a public thoroughfare. His Worship fined the defendant Is and costs. Bbeach of Municipal Bye-Laws.— John Duff was charged, on the information of the Inspector of Nuisances, with allowing a certain nuisance to exist on his premises by keeping pigs thereon. Peter Clayton deposed that he visited the defendant's premises in Eevell and Beach streets on the 12th instant. Witness saw eight young pigs and two old ones in the yard, and a dead one laying on a heap of firewood. There were also a quantity of bones lying about. There was a most offensive smell arising from the state of the premises. By the Court — Witness served defendant with a notice in August last. His Worship fined the defendant L 2 and costs, and cautioned him to abate the nuisance. Bbeach of Police Ordinance. — Eate Murray was charged, on the information of Annie Brown, with, on the 16th instant, using abusive and insulting language towards her, calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. It appeared that the two women had amused themselves by " slanging " one another. His Worship dismissed the information. Laeceny. — William Wylie was charged, on the information of Eeuke F. Luks, with, on or about the 17th or 18th day of December, stealing a nugget ring and a gold lever watch, of the value of Lll, the property of Mi- Luks. At the request of the police the prisoner was remanded till the 23rd instant, as sufficient time had not elapsed to enable the police to subpoena witnesses. Bail, prisoner in LSO, and two sureties in L 25 each. Laeceny. — Jesse Eastwood was charged, on the information of William Hawkins, with, on the 19th instant, stealing from the person of Mr Hawkins a purse containing Ll4 in gold and a passage-ticket. — Mr Button appeared for the prisoner. — At the request of the police the prisoner was remanded till the 2lßt instant. Bail. — Prisoner in LSO and two sureties in L 25 each. Assault with Intent to do Grievous Bodily Hab ii. — William Farquharson,charged with this offence by Francis Forster, appeared on his bail. — In reply to the usual caution from the Bench, prisoner through his counsel, Mr South, pleaded not guilty to the charge. — Mr South here addressed the Court, and commented at some length on the evidence adduced on the part of the prosecutor. The learned counsel dwelt on the discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses Foster and Hamstead, and drew the attention of the Court to the fact that the one witness Forster swore to the prisoner holding the blade of the knife upwards, whilst the witness Hamstead swore the reverse. Mr South called George Harrison who deposed that he was a stockowner. Prisoner has been in his employ for eleven months. About 11 o'clock on the 11th instant, witness rode up with prisoner to Foster's house. Witness who was slightly in advarce of the prisoner, got up to the house about three or four minutes before him. They were both on horseback. Witness saw Foster, his wife, Hamstead and two strangers at Foster's house. Prisoner when he came up, spoke to Hamstead

and not to Foster. He told Hamstead he had taken a horse two days ago, and had been riding it and not to do so again. Foster then asked prisoner what he had got to do with the horse ; what -business it was of hi 3. So far as witness can remember that is all that passed. They then rode on, and prisoner accompanied witness as far as the Kanieri. Prisoner did not say to Foster, that the next time he took a horse he would make it a warning to him, and that he would report him for horse-stealing. He did not tell Foster he would do for him before long. Witness was in a position to hear everything prisoner said. Witness has every reason to believe there is a bad feeling existing between prisoner, Foster, and Hamstead. It arose out of a case of sheep stealing and the seizure of a still. Prisoner is a very sober, steady, quiet, and hard-working man. Cross-examined by Police— Prisoner could not have used any threatening words either to Foster or Hamstead without witness hearing them. Prisoner was within two paces of him, and Foster was standing close by. Hamstead was also standing alongside. Prisoner did not remain at Foster's more than three or four minutes. Witness left slightly in advance of prisoner — about the length of his horse ahead. When prisoner spoke to Ham stead he spoke in hia ordinary tone of voice. Foster and witness had some conversation.- They abused one another. The one told the other that he had ridden quite as man} horees that did not belong to him as the other had. Witness is quite sure that as they were leaving, prisoner did not turn round and say to Foster, " I'll do for you." John Evans deposed that the prisoner and himself were fishing in the river, when the sergeant of police came up, about seven or eight o'clock. Prisoner was not in an excited state. The sergeant said, he had received information from Foster, " that he was in danger of bis life, as prisoner had been using a knife." Prisoner said he had lost his knife , and a spur. The sergeant produced a knife, __ and prisoner at once recognized and claimed it. Prisoner had previously told witness he had lost his knife and spur. He. told witness this a long time before. Prisoner told him that Foster and himself had been fighting, and he had loßt his knife. Prisoner said they had been illusing him and knocking him about. He complained of a kick under the short ribs. Prisoner's face was scratched. Witness has frioyn prisoner fov pbput twelve mopfhs,

He is a quiet man. Witness believes there is ill feeling existing between the prisoner and Foster and Hamsteacl, arising out of a case of shccpstealing, and the seizure of a still. Witness as never known prisoner to threaten Foster or Hamstead. Cross-examined by Police— Prisoner told the Sergeant he had lost hia knife after the Sergeant produced it. Hi« worship remarked that the case was a complete one, if he could place any reliance on the evidence of the witness Foster. Both witnesses called for the prosecution had appeared in the Court on a former occasion. He could not give the slightest credence to any evidence the witness foster had given. The prisoner was accordingly discharged. Bbeach op West Coast (of Canterbury) Haebob Regulations. — Simon M'Leod was charged, on the information of Sergeant Wilson with, on the 16th inst, removing certain gravel from crown lands without the permission of the Harbor Master, clause xii. of the Regulation, states Chat "no ballast, shingle, stones, or shells, or any part of the soil, shali be removed from any land of the crown without the permission of the Harbor Master." Sergeant Wilson deposed that he found the defendant removing gravel with his dray from the beach on the 16th inst, about 10.15 a.m. Witness was removing gravel from the back of Bevell-street west. He had no permission to do so. Cross-examined by defendant — Defendant said he had permission from the Municipal Council. He was removing the gravel from the beach on the south side of Tudorstreet. John C. Frew, Town Surveyor, was called, and stated that the defendant was working with Hope, who had entered into a contract with the Corporation on the 2nd of November. A clause was inserted in the specification, authorising the contractors to remove gravel from the beach north of Tudor street. Witness had asked the police to take steps towards preventing people removing gravel from the beach south of Tudor street. The Corporation gave the contractors permission to remove the gravel, but subsequently, finding they had no authority to do so, they obtained verbal permission from the harbor-master to remove gravel north of Tudor street— Mr Shaw, the Mayor, stated that a mistake as to the boundaries of the town had arisen. Captain Turnbull understood the boundaries of the town to extend to the end of the houses along Eevell street. Captain Turnbull does not object to allow the gravel being removed north of the end of the town. — His Worship stated that Captain Turnbull had better withdraw the information and give the necessary permission. — Mr Shaw remarked that the harbor-master had promised yesterday to give them the necessary permission in writing. — His Worship said this permission need not be in writing, — verbal permission was sufficient. — Mr Frew stated that Captain Turnbull had given verbal permission. — Sergeant Hickson said that Captain Turnbull had not given permission to remove gravel from the beach at the back of the houses in Eevell street. — Mr Shaw remarked that it was simply a mistake as to the locality from where the gravel was to be removed. — His Worship adjourned the case till the following morning, in order that Captain Turnbull might be communicated with. Several other informations for similar offences were also adjourned till the following day.