MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 17 January 1933, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

PEEPING TOM,

GREYMOUTH, January 17

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday Robert Wainman was charged that, on January 2, he was found without lawful excuse, but in circumstances not disclosing the commission or intention to commit any other offence, in a> building the property of Robert McTaggart, of Mill Street, Runanga.

Accused pleaded “guilty, with no ill-intent.”

,Senior-Sergeant Roach said that McTnggaJ’t was Mayor of Runanga. Ho and his wife retired for the night about 11.15 o’clock. Accused saw that the blind wife no a few inches, went and stood on the verandah, and had a peep into the bedroom. Nothing was known against him previously. It seemed to be just a. weakness on his part. “So far as ‘Peeping, Toms' are concerned,” ©aid the Senior-Sergeant, “it is the first occasion that anything has been heard of such a thing in Runanga.

The S.M.: Do you wish to say anything ? Accused: I can only say that I was not there with any ill-intent. I don’t know what made me do such a thing. I am not accustomed to do such things. 1 would like my name suppressed, for my mother’s sake. The- S.M.There is no excuse for what you did. Going vm private ground and peeping into rooms is a thing that cannot be allowed. Anyone doing it is regarded as a “Peeping Tom,” and “Peeping Toms” are people not desirable in any town or district. You are fined £l, with 10s costs. I will make no order about suppressing your name.

ALLEGED CRUELTY

KOKATAHI DROVER CHARGED

That, at Greymouth, on. December 5, he caused cattle to he conveyed in a ra’lway truck in such a mannei as to subject such animals to unnecessary suffering, was the charge laid against Norman Ka-rnbach, drover, of Kokatahi. Defendant pleaded not guilty, and was represented by Mr J. W. Hannan.

Senior-Sergeant Roach stated that, on December 5, about 7 p.m., in consequence of a complaint reoeived, Sergeant. Smyth and Constable Downs went to the Railway Station, and saw a truck full of mixed cattle. Some of the beaste were- tied up, with, a piece of rope through their nostrils, and some of them were free. Several were bleeding at the nose, having been pushed about by the free animals. One had the end of its nostril torn out', having freed 'itself from the rope by pushing back or falling. In a statement made to Constable Drummond, at Kokatahi, defendant said that when the cattle left Hokitika, far Islington, everything was -all right. The usual method was employed in trucking them,

Sergeant Smyth, in the course of his ev'dence, isaid. that on© Ayrshire bull, which had a prominent pair of horns, was loose in. the truck, and was causing considerable trouble to the other cattle. Witness considered that the injuries to the animals were caused by the manner in which they were tied up. There was quite an amount of blood in the truck, and those still tied up were bleeding severely. Witness and the constable untied them, which was the only thing to do. To tie cattle up in such a manner was simply cruel. The rest of the cattle were at the mercy of the bull that was loose.

Evidence of a corroborative natnre was given by Constable Downs, who expressed the opinion that, by the time the cattle had got to Christchurch, they would have been in a “decent mess.”

Joseph Connnig, Ateat Inspector of Hokitika, said that he saw the cattle trucked, and the truck was not overloaded. It was the usual practice to tie up the bulls. The Ayrshire bull regulations required that. Rings were provided in the truck for the purpose. Witness considered that the cattle were in a safe condition to travel. The ropes were of the usual length. Defendant waJs also of the opinion that it was necessary to tie up the cattle.

To the Senior-Sergeant: It was quite a common occurrence to see a bull with his nos© torn out. It not cause much suffering. There were no arteries in the ndse and the wound soon healed up. Witness did not consider that the cattle were suffering. When he was at the freezing works, he had known hundreds of cattle to die in trucks, even when they were not tied up. Th© Ayshire bull was wild, and should have been tied with two ropes. He was tied up when he left Hokitika, and witness did not understand how the bull got free. He did not agree with the Senior-Sergeant’s suggestion., that he had become callous. If dehorning were made compulsory, there would ho no necessity to tie cat-tie up. To Mr Hannan: A longer rope would not be of more use. Defendant stated that ho believed h 3 was required by the regulations, to tie up the bulls. The Arysliire bull was tied up at Hokitika. The ropes were nearer three feet than two feet long. He bought new rnpe for the purpose. It was not usual to travel with the cattle, a. S it would not pay expenses. It was a common thing for bulls to have their nostte pulled out. He denied being careless about the cattle. The S.Af. said that the question wais whether defendant knowingly allowed

the cattle to suffer unnecessarily. He had adopted the uisual practice, where bulls were shipped with other cattle, in tying the bulls up to rings placed in the trucks for that purpose by the Railways Department. The Inspector of Stock at Hokitika witnessed the loading of the cattle there. He considered that it was carried out in the ordinary way, and that it was properly done. Apparently, on,© of the bulls got free in the truck. That may have been the cause of one of the animals struggling to get away from the bull, and pulling the rcjpe away from its nostrils. The Inspector of Stock had said that it was not an unusual thing, that there were no arteries in the nose, and that the injury would not he exceedingly painful. It appeared that all cattle trucking had more or less cruelty about it. Tire Inspector said that when he was at the freezing works, hundreds of beasts arrived there dead in the trucks. All that could he done was to minimise the trouble as much as possible. In this case, he thought that the defendant had done what he believed to be correct. The (fact that some suffering followed did not appear to have been very serious, according to the Inspector. Tt was rather of an accidental nature, and w-als not deliberately caused by the defendant. The case 1 would be dismissed.