MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2229, 5 November 1907, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

MONDAY, NOVEMBER '1

Before Mr. AV. A. Barton, S.M.

Drunkenness.—Walter Sarsfiekl was charged with being found drunk ni a public wince, and was convicted. As this was the third conviction within 0 months, accused was sentenced .to seven days imprisonment with hard labor and at tli 0 instance of ■the Magistrate, a prohibition older was issued against him. John B-ca-iiliy, charged .with a similar offence, was convicted and lined £l, with 2s costs, in default 3 days imprisonment. A first offender was also dealt with in the usual manner; Cs fine and 2s costs. . Theft of a Saddle. —A ■"•oivth aged IG, was charged with stealing a saddle which ho had borrowed. Mr Do hauteur appeared lor accused, who pleaded guilty and •elected to ho de-ait with summarily. His Worship remanded the case until 10 o’clock the following; morning to make further enquiries, remarking that he did not lik e to send young people to gaol if it could possibly bo avoided. Issuing a Trading Coupon.—Win. Brady, for whom Mr Stock appeared, plodded not guilty to the above charge. Detective Aladdern conducted the prosecution and gave evidence as to having visited tlio P.B. Co-o-porativo Store on 15th of October. Defendant showed him idle pamphlet (produced) and witness enquired if it had boon issued by him. Defendant replied that it had. Witness saw a case of books in tlio store and asked if they were the books to bo given away in exchange for the coupons. This was also replied to in tlio .affirmative. He purchased lib of tea, and asked defendant if be was aware that lie was committing a. breach of the law in giving coupons. To Mr Stock: Did not get pampnlct from defendant. This was the only tea lie had bought and lie had read the conditions of the coupon. William Brady, defendant, in reply to Mr Stock, stated that he was Die in niager of tile Co-operative Co. He •bought the book-gifit tea from its proprietors and received the books with the tea. The tea was obtained in tlio usual course of business and was not sent on consignment •to him for sale. Any person bringing him the necessary number of coupons was entitled to a book. ’Io Detective Aladdern: Hiis company were not agents for the proprietors of the “Book Gift Tea,” and he had not distributed any pamphlets. AftStock addressed the Court at length and contended that in this case tnere was no breach, as the coupon that was given with the tea was not really a coupon within the meaning of the Act. Counsel made a point of the fact that it was not redeemable by a “Trading Stamp Company,” which means any person who undertakes to redeem a coupon. Judgment was reserved till the following morning. •Rescuing Stock from Ranger. — David Courtney (Air Finn) app»ared to .answer th 0 above charge, and pleaded not guilty. William Henry Jones deposed that he was -.anger for the Ormond Road Board and 'reduced his appointment. From information received, ho went to Che Domain road and found 7 held of cattle and one horse grazing thoie with no person in charge of them. He proceeded to impound them, and had taken them away a short distance when defendant appeared on the scene and in an angry manner demanded his cattle. Delivery uas refused and tlio defendant foreil -,y took them, saying that he denel either informant or the Road Board to take them from him. To Air Film : The road on which the cattle were found was a by-road running at right angles to tbe main road, between two sections. Persons would have to use the ro-ad to get to tbe creek. Had been 34 years in the district and had' never seen stock depastured there before. Geo. R-obt. Pitclier, farmer, Ormond, in reply to Air Stock, said that on the day .in question he saw defendant’s cattle on tlie road with no person near them. His land adjoined the road, .and lie paid' rates to the Ormond Road Board. To Air Finn : This byroad was not used to take stock to water, as the banks of the creek were too steep in tlia-t place. The owners of the land lind fenced off the road. Elizabeth Alullooly corroborated tlio evidence of tlio previous witnesses as to cattle being on the road and as to defendant taking them away. Cross-examined by .Air Finn : The ranger did not seize her liorse that- day, nor did she give him any money. Diniiel Courtney,- defendant, deposed that he sent the children with the cattle to water oil Sunday 13th .October, and saw the cattle” run off tlie main road into the Domain road. Saw defendant come along and put his dog on the cattle, when the children were only a few chains away. Asked him for his authority, to impound and merely held the cattle until this was produced or until a member of tlie Road Board substantiated informant’s statement. To Air Stock: Paid rates to Ormond Road Board. .Air Finn contended that the charge could not be sustained on the evidence as there was nothing to show. that the road ill question was a road -within till© jurisdiction of the Board. His Worship, however, held differently and convicted defendant, fining him £2; with costs £1 3s, also witnesses’ expenses £1 4s and £1 Is solicitors fee. Patrick O’Sullivan was charged with having deserted his wife in August last. Air. Finn appeared for informant, and Air. Stock for defendant. Hannah O’Sullivian stated that she was the wife of defendant, and had been living with him until August last. Sho had then left on account of the persistent cruelty to which she was subjected. On tlie day before she left lie had threatened to kill her, and had attempted to strike her; but had been prevented by her son, who warned his father to “look out- for the law.” Witness had 13 acres of land at Ormond leased from the Government, and was living there at present, but was unable to support herself on it. To Air. Stock: She had applied for leave to live elsewhere than on tlio Ormond property, and had been granted a two months extension of time, but had not left her husband, in order that she would not lose tlie property. Previous to the present information she had laid another information for cruelty. Her son had 10 cattle oil the section, but she had none. Her son had also leased 20 acres adjoining land at £2 per acre. Ernest O’Sullivan, sou of the last witness, stated that he had beard complaints by bis father, blit no threats, and bad never prevented him from striking her. In his opinion informant left- oil account of tlie Ormond section. He had never told his father to look out for the law. Complainant had not been homo since August. In reply to Air. Stock, witness said that the chief cause of complaint was complainant’s frequentabsence and neglect of tlie home. Patrick O’Sullivan, defendant, deposed that lie bad never on any occasion threatened to do any harm to his wife. To Air. Finn: Told his wife that if slio wlanted to go she had better go and save all trouble. Since she went ho had contributed nothing towards her maintenance. Had 40 head of cattle and horses, and war at present working at Waerenga-o-kuri. To Air. Stock: He bad recently purchased a bouse, and land, for his wife to live in, and was prepared lor her to come back now, or at any. time.—Air. Stock contended that there was not sufficient evidence to prove desertion. His Worship, in taking this view, dismissed the case, and recommended the informant, to return to her husband, who was, in bis opinion, making her a very good offer to do o.