RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Kumara Times, Issue 623, 26 September 1878, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, September 26. ,[Before M. Price, Esq.,; R.M.] DRUNKENNESS. ? ’ Mary E. Lincoln,, for the aboye offence was fined 10s, with the alternative of 24 hours’. imprisonment. ■ MALICIOUSLY KILLING A DUCK. Ellen O’Donnell was charged that she did on the 17th day of September unlawfully and maliciously kill one duck, the property of Gilbert Stewart, valued at ss. Mr Hankins appeared for the defendant, and Inspector O’Donnell conducted the prosecution. ' Constable Clacken. proved the service of the summons, and also stated that the defendant said in reply to his telling her the charge, that she threw a stick at the duck, and she afterwards admitted having killed it. Thomas Nichols,, sworn, deposed : I have been engaged as cook, at Hogg’s, but am now out of employment. I was -fttJßngg’a-OP-thfl 17th inat. T I was sawIng a pttCo ui wood ClOae th um react* j the defendant was in her own yard, close to me; there were some bags on the fence, and she could not see me. I saw defendant throw something over the fence, and I saw it was a duck. I said she bad made a mistake as it belonged to Gilbert Stewart. I saw no other person in the yard at that time. I picked up the duck ; it was warm, and the head was cut off; it was also bleeding. This was between four and five o’clock in the afternoon. I gave the duck to the barman at Rugg’s. I had been employed at Gilbert Stewart’s previously. I know Mr Stewart had ducks—somewhere about 30. I was working there seven months, anjl it was part of my duty to feed them. I took the duck round to Mr Stewart’s and asked him if it was his dqck; and he said he thought it was. Mr Rugg also has ducks. Mr Stewart’s are grey, Mr Rugg’s are mostly black ones [duck produced]. This is the duck I picked up in the yard; no one else besides Mr Rugg has ducks about here. By Mr Hawkins : The head was not thrown over with the duck. I can identify it by its colour. During the seven months I was at Stewart’s he may have killed a dozen. I can identify this duck without the head. I never particularly noticed the heads of ducks. Mr Rugg had no ducks without heads ; he has no grey ducks. I did not hear the defendant say anything to the observation I made. By the Court: I had been in the yard all day, Xhe defendant came into her yard about lO minutes before the duck was thrown over. I never saw anything thrown over from Kugg’s yard into the defendant's. lam certain no duck was thrown over. 'Gilbert sworn, deposed: I remember Saturday the 17th hist. My section joins Mr Rugg’s at the back, and is fenced in, with a hole left for the fowls to get out. I Had about 15 ducks on the 17th inst.; they were of different colours. I was shown a du-¥ without a head on that' afternoon, and I said I thought it was mine. I counted mine a day or two after, and I missed two. The duck produced is the same duck shewn to me on the 17tb inst. Ido not say it is mine ; I think it is. The colour is different from Mr Rugg’s ducks. I value it at ss. Cross-examined by Mr Hawkins : I hive about 15 ducks altogether. I could not identify the duck produced.

J^nry? waitress at Itngg*S HotS!,"deposed s • I was itf 'Rggg’s yard • on tbe 17th inst., frdmJabhttt 10 o’clock in the morning 'to half-pa4t four in the afternoon. I saw defendant on that afternoonshe was beating some ducks with a long stick, yard. I pointed out the stick to Mr Rugg. I • could not identify the fetick. I came into our yard afterwards, and saw a duck headless lying there. This was after I had seen the defendant beating them with a stick.. Cross-examined by MrftaWkihfj-i I was in our yard. washing ; my face was . towards the defendant’s yard. I did not say I saw a duckthrown over. She .. beat them till they made their Escape. She beat ; them from' her otvh door to titb' ■ * fence. I was standing in th&yard, and could see the defendant quite plain. 1 stood and watched her beating the v ducks ; I do not know how many yards ' the door is from , the fenoe,ldp ‘hofe’ l know if it hi twenty, teh|‘ ; five. br Jwji r; yards. \ I paw Nichols / pick., up-/the -■ ■ duck.. I don’t' know how .fa’r , Hi<jHpl|l' was from me ; I don’t know; if a yard away. I have npldea bpw v inucb a yard is. ; : By the Court: The defehdanV was beating the ducks; violently land trying to get them out. of her yard.., t T ’saw m> none of the ducks fall when atrapko ' . Mr Hawkins contended' that the case must be dismissed on thp grounds that the ownership of thp dbck ..had iipbvr been proved, and should the Court overrule this bbjectibh, then he‘ depended to have the case thrown ’oVer oti ; the grounds that, no malice was shown by the defendant. ' His Worship said that, the /fiypt $rK gnraent used by the defendant’s counsel ’ he must overrule, as the identity of. ' the duck, although not sworn to. by the owner, was by another who distinctly said if was one of : /. Stewart’s ducks. As to the ■- taking the whole of the circumstanced l -" v • of the case, I may say *Sn this comes not very stronglyj but still, ,it j does come under the clause bf%e and I Consider on the whole ant did it unlawfully, and maiibipusly^ : U , e d Ido not, intend to inflict ’.a. heavy" bbqi 5 ‘ fence and shall with costs of Court, and the’ yalupbf' 7 the duck ss, or 14 days’ imprisonment. Addressing the defendant his Wriywb'ip^‘ J>; ' ‘ said. I do trust this will" ; abt’;aVV warning; you . will be, only . a yourself into trouble, if'you; go onsi '*•' ’ this manner. I make "thpse;. remarks -' with the'best your own benefit. 'layout nbi^^orS^^ in your own'hands; '• ; ! -v •*' The fine was immeduitelypaid; i--J [Left sitting]' J: - •