CO129-061 - Public Offices - 1856 — Page 262

Made every effort to bring Mr. Geord before the Magistrate.

After keeping both Mr. Hoult and Alcock for 2 1/2 hours, Magistrate again postponed the case until Friday (the 18th), which day Mr. May ordered the attendance of Mr. Tawver also.

On two days, evidence was adduced direct as to the charge of encroachment on Crown land, and not only was it not recorded by the Magistrate, but the case was first postponed, and principal supervisors of work having been twice abstracted from their duties, will now be so for the third time, and all because it is not evident that an individual entitled to 340 feet and having built over 363 1/2 has committed an encroachment of 23 feet 6 inches. Moreover, as I detailed in my former letter, the excited defendant used abusive language to me personally.

But should a more complex case, involving 3 dimensions, occur, what probability is there of a decision under 10 days or a fortnight? What exhibition of summary jurisdiction can compensate for such loss of time of the Officers of this Department? What authority of mine under the clauses of the Act, with text and discretion, will have the power of checking indecent language when the presiding Magistrate will not resent it?

What certainty is there that vituperation and gratuitous statements may not be held good, and sufficient reasons to postpone a case in spite of immediate and most direct evidence?

On the 10th, I attended again being summoned, I merely answered again the same questions I had answered on the 7th. Mr. Lower attended, and Mr. Seal attended, and after the Magistrate had again refused to hear evidence as to the 25 1/2 feet of excess built over by the Defendant, indicated that he must consult the Chief Magistrate (Mr. Mitchell) as to a suggestion of the Defendant that the Magistrate must adjudicate under Ordinance 12 and not Ordinance 8.

An hour and a half, viz. from 11 to 12:30 p.m., was thus consumed.

I have the honor to be,

Dir,

Your Obedient Servant,

Milham Roper

258 and

The same to the same.

July

1836.

That I

with

but

I request permission to refer to my letters No. 39 of 16th May, No. 40 of the 24th May, No. 46 of last June, No. 164 of 7 June, No. 49 of 30th June, No. 50 of 7th July, and No. 52 of 11th July.

In continuation, I report for His Excellency's information that I applied for summonses against G. Gaddell and Anting for infraction of Ordinance I of 1856, that the Magistrate refused to summon these Offenders, and to my second similar application (of which the Acting Chief Magistrate, Mr. Mitchell, complained to His Excellency), I have received no answer.

I have to acknowledge your letter of the 19th instant, in which you direct a personal application for summonses by Mr. Pentt, Foreman of Works. That in obedience to your order of the 19th instant, Mr. Pentt, Foreman of Works, attended at the Magistrate's Office, and after being detained from 3 to 5 p.m. without being suffered to make his application, was informed by the Magistrate, Mr. May, that he, the Magistrate, declined to issue the summonses applied for, or to order under Section ... of Ordinance 3 the removal of the nuisance which he had ...

XVII

1

Page 363

Page 363

Page 363

...

Page 364

Page 364

Page 364