Tr
veneer pansin when strijed : The Honorable Tie Kromey General (who at my personal request appeared for me the defendant ) by cross examination elicited that these materials had been in the road ten days and the casuistry of the counsel for the plaintiff failing to convince the Judge that such was identical with a state of transition. The case was dismissed.
undertaken.
my
the experiment therefore was only partially successful but what if the Honorable Attorney General had not kindly undertaken the cause and the falsehoods adduced had appeared. Being unable by cross examination to prove their incongruity ? In such case I should have been defrauded out of a considerable sum.
I hope that His Excellency will think proper to direct the Attorney General to undertake my defence in all subsequent experiments and I submit that the plea advanced in the case detailed shows that the action had for its object my annoyance as a Government Officer and not the redress of injuries sustained for the learned counsel for the plaintiff might with equal truth have stated that the building materials seized, "were in nubibus"
I have the honor to be,
Your Obedient Servant,
Miluan Proper
inte
sing
Accom
Me.49.
Sir,
I have the honor to apprise you that on the 18th instant Mr John Darby lubb applied for a summons, against a (Whoo) for a nuisance in his (Ph: Cibbs) immediate vicinity that on the 21st Mr Mitchell the Chief Magistrate refused to issue such at his request ruling that the Atty. B. General must apply.
On the 21st I applied for a summons, against Ahoo for offences against paragraph II section I and 5 of Ordinance 8 of 1836.
I received information that the case would be heard on the 28th at noon but on proceeding to the Police Court at that time I was informed that the Case was adjourned until Monday at noon and this morning being Monday received another notice of alteration of the time viz to the 30th.
I attended, and the defendant through his attorney, pleaded guilty but ignorance of the Ordinance and that he had had no warning.
I called evidence and proved the offences Nevertheless the Magistrate (Mr. May) ruled that a man must have notice and disregard it for 12 hours before he can be deemed guilty of a nuisance. He adjourned the case for one week. Laying over that if in that interval the defendant satisfied the Magistrate that the wall was properly reconstructed the case would be dismissed and ruled that Mr. Seart the overseer of works should attend on that day and state whether the Ordinance had been complied with.
Vremoed.
Page 256
30th June 1836.
Tr
veneer pansin when strijed : The Wororable Tie Kromey General (who at my personal request af reared for me the defendant ) by cross examination elicited that these materials had been in the road ten days and the cacuistry of the counsel for the plaintiff failing to convince the Judge that such was identical with as state of transition. The ease was dis -
missed.
undertaken.
my
the exheriment therefore was only partially sunceceful but what of the Honorable Attorney Coneral had not kindly
cause and the falsehoods adduced had appeared. congruous no veing able by cross examination to prove their insengruity ? In such case I should have been defrauded out of a considerable sam.
Shope that His Secellency will think proper to direct the Attorney Ceneral to undertake my defence in all subsequent experiments and I submit that the plea advanced in the once detailed shows that the action had for its dfjist my annoyance as a levernment Officer and not the recess of injuries sustained for the learned counsel for the plaintiff might with equal truth have stated that the building materials seized,
"were" in nubibus"
I have the honor to be,
Fir Your Obedient Servant, Miluan Proper
inte
sing
Accom
Me.49.
Sir,
saplicate
The same to the same.
256
30th June 1836.
a man
I have the honor to apprise you that on the 18 instant Mr John Darby lubb applied for a summons,
• against a (Whoo ) for a nuisance in his (Ph: Cibbs) immediate vicinity that on the 21tt Mr Mitchell the Chif tragistrate refused to issue such at his request ruling that the Artz. B. Ceneral must apply.
On the 214 Sapplied for a summons,
against Ahoo for offences against paragraph. II kotion I and 5 of Ordinance
8 of 1836.
Speerived information that the case would be heard on the 20th at noon but on procciding to the Police Court at that time I was informed that the Case was adjourned until monday at now and this morning being monday received another notice of alteration of the time vig to the pr.10. 6. to day.
Sattended, and the defendant through his hiltony, pleaded guilty but ignorance of the Ordinance and trat no had had no warning.
Scalled evidence and proved the offences Revertheless the Magistrate (MN: May) rusted that a man must have notice and dieregard it for 12 hours vefore he can be deemed and other guilty of a nuisance. adjourned the lace for one week. Laying over ten that if in that interval the defendant satisfied the
A. 26. that the wall was properly reconstructed the case new! be an ite should be dismissed and rused that M: Seart the overseer
of works should attend on that day and state whether the Ordinance had been complied with
Vremoed.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.