Brighouse & Rastrick Gazette. — 1890-02-15 (Brighouse, West Yorkshire, England)

THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND HIS COSTS.  In the Queen's Bench Division,on Monday,before Mr. Justice Cave and Mr. Justice A. L. Smith, the case of Stubbs and another v. the Director of Public Prosecutions was heard. This was a special case stated for the opinion of the court, raising questions as to the extent to which the Public Prosecutor, having undertaken a prosecution instituted originally by a private person, should be held liable for the costs of the proceedings. The original prosecutor was Mr. J. C. Gostling, who in August, 1885, as stated in the special case, made a charge of criminal conspiracy against Messrs. C. L. Stubbs and T. Irving, trading as Irving and Co. The charge was first made before an alderman of the City of London, who refused to commit or to have the plaintiffs tried for the alleged offence. Mr. Gostling subsequently preferred an indictment against them, and in the end of May, 1886, the Director of Public Prosecutions, under the Prosecution of Offences Acts, 1879 and 1884, undertook the prosecution, the plaint,ffs being tried before the Recorder in August, 1886, and both acquitted. The Recorder afterwards made orders for costs against the person at whose instance the indictment was pi eferred, and these orders were the subject of the special case.—The Attorney-General contended that the Public Prosecutor could not be ade liable for costs incurred in consequence of the original prosecutor preferring the indictmept, and that in taking over a prosecution he became liable only for costs for which the original prosecutor had given security. The original prosecutor had not given any security for costs.--Mr. argued, on the other hand, that the Public Prosecutor in taking over a prosecution took the place of the original prosecutor in regard to the costs of the prosecution generally.—The learned judges, after hearing arguments, said the .case was an important one and they would give their judgment on another day in writing.  Considerable want ot discipline appears to prevail in the Burmese police force. A private of the Shwebo police battalion has been arrested on a charge of murdering the subadar major. and a noncommissioned officer and three other privates are charged with abetting the same crime. At Henzada two privates of the police opened a fusillade from the roof of the barrack on the townspeople, and three Chinamen and three Burmanswere killed. One of the policemen was dangerously wouhded by the fire of the troops who were tinned oilt. The other committed suicide on finding snaps imoossablig.  AN EXTRAORDINARY MISTAKE  Probably one of the oddest things ever recorded in the history of modern: warfare happened (says the Times of India) the other day in connection with the Kachin expedition. A column was sent out from Momeit on the south and another from Bliamo on the north to punish a large body of rebels who have been displaying a little too much activity lately in the neighbourhood of the Shweli River. The rendezvous was Manton, which it was thought had been in the temporary occupation of the Kachins. When Captain Greenway's column arrived, however, the rebels had left the field clear for them and hastened off up the hills. Captain Greenway promptly occupied the village, and made things ready in anticipation of a possible surprise. In the meantime, Major Blundell arrived within hail of the village, and seeing signs of activity within, concluded that the Kachins were still in possession, and forthwith proceeded to shell the place. Captain Greenway's column, deeming an attack by no means unlikely, naturally mistook the firing for that of the Kachins and returned it with some warmth. The rival columns attacked each other with tremendous vigour, and each was doubtless not a little astonished at the determined attitude of its supposed savage antagonist, Nobody seems to have got hurt—which is perhaps a very curious commentary on so vigorous and unpreoedented a battle.