WARDEN'S COURT,

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 155, 29 January 1868, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT,

Monday January 27. (Before J. Giles, Esq., M.D., RM.) Henry Duffy, a miner, was charged by the police under the Goldfields Act, with having disobeyed the Warden's injunction to restrain him from washing the tailings from Ormsbie's claim. Mr T. A. S. Kynnersley was put into the box and deposed to having granted an injunction to restrain the defendant from continuing to wash the tailings proceeding from Ormsl i j's claim until the application made by the latter for ground whereon to start the said tailings had been heard anl determined. He could not recollect the precise date.

Mr Downes, the Clerk of the Court, recollected the injunction being issued on Friday the 17th inst. Henry Braithwaite and on? or two of his mates, proved the date of the application to the Commissioner for the injunction. Henry Dufty, the defendant, said that he had no solicitor to defend him, and he could not explain himself so thoroughly as he would wish to do, but that the Crown had brought no sufficient proof of the service of the injunction. He' called, Henry Hodgson, who said that no headings or tailings came down directly opposite their box. It was quite possible for them to wash the tailings from Tapley's claim without meddling with Ormsbie's. ]f they had not washed them, they would simply ruo away where the rest had gone for many weeks, i.e. into the creek. He admitted they had worked their own ground all over, and that they could not work it without removing the mullock that rolled down over it from the terrace above. Had heard his mate say he had received a piece of paper but did not know anything of an injunction. The Warden said that the case had been hardly so well got up by the police as it might have been. The fundamental law was that there was no deeisive process of injunction having been served. There was no reasonable doubt on his Worship's mind, of the commission o the offence, but he would not feci justi fied in committing the defendant on the evidence. The case was therefore dismissed.

RESIDENT MAGISTATE'tf COURT. (Before J. Giles, Esq., M.D., R,M.) Tuesday, January 27. ASSAULT ON DOARD SHIP. Thomas Crnndewell charged William Sinclair with having assaulted him in the cabin of the Southland steamship. Constable Rooke stated that he served the summons on defendant personally on board the Southland. The complainant stated that he was the steward of the steamer. He went into the cabin at half-past one yesterday, and was getting his dinner when the defendant, who is the ship's cook, came in deliberately struck him in the face with his shut fist. He had given him no provocation, nor had there been any quarrel between them that day, although he (witness) had frequently had occasion to find fault with defendant, on which occasion the latter had threatened him, but had never struck

him before. "Witness was in bodily fear of hiin. Mr Hargreaves, the chief officer, was present in the cabin, and had restrained defendant or he would have used more violence. The defendant did not appear to answer to the charge, and was fined 40s for the assault, being also bound over in £lO, and two sureties of £2O each, to keep the peace for six months* Illegal Possession of Oysters. On the previous day a man named Henry Marks had been brought up, charged by Inspector Eranklyn, under the new Oyster and Fisheries Protection Act, with having on Saturday the 25th offered for sale certain oysters, contrary to the provision of the Act of Assembly, which prohibits their sale during certain close months, of which January is one. The corpus delicti was in Court, and certainly had not an odour which would inspire one with an ardent desire to infringe the law by becoming a purchaser. Mr Tyler, who appeared for the defence, argued that as the law did not specify what particular oysters were forbidden to be sold or used it would be just as reasonable to arrest any storekeeper who had tins of oysters in his shop, as to seize upon his client and his wares, which' he was hawking about to gain an honest living. If the Act were meant to apply only to New Zealand oysters, it was clearly the business of the police to prove that those now in Court, were the produce of New Zealand. His instructions on the contrary were that they were Sydney rock oysters. The defendant was not sworn, but being allowed to make a statement, said that he bought the oysters on boa-d the' Kennedy on his return from Hokitika, and was told they were from Sydney ; it was not at all likely they should buy such perishable produce at Nehon, take them down to Hokitika, anl bring them for sale at Westport. Judgment was reserved until yesterday, when the Court said it was of far more importance to ascertain what was the real bearing of the Act than to punish the oifender. They must be bound by the letter of the statute, unless it would lead to some absurd consequences. It it included the prohibition of the sale of all potted oysters, this would be a manifest absurdity, as they could not have been caught and preserved within the prohibited months. But it was equally clear that the fisheries of New Zealand could not be effectually protected, if foreign oysters were allowed to be sold about the streets. Seeing the difficulty of distinguishing between one aud the other, it was no doubt the intention of the legislature to pass a sweeping clause that should entirely prohibit the sale of oysters m certain months In future the Act would be carried out strictly whether the article were native or foreign, but in this case a merely nominal penalty of 10s. would be inflicted. Worrall v. Charles O'Donnell. — £8 15s for medical attendance. Judgment by default, and immediate execution granted.