RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CHRISTCHURCH.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XI, Issue 652, 5 February 1859, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CHRISTCHURCH.

If Monday, January 31st. I , .^ 0^ta :®ridfiam<rwa3 brought>«p on a charge of F being drank, dri Saturday; morning last.. Prisoner admitted, the charge, and-was dismissed with cau- ; wbn^ithe-court not ienforcingr the usual-fine, in coMiderafcion of his k having been under confine- ; miwtjsince Saturdajimorning at the police station. |j . Bhowariee Singh, an Indiannative^'-'was..fined 50s. ! for drunkenness and resistance to the police while at j the police etatiqn j and in default of-, payment, was I committedl»^liytteltongaol for onenionth. I James Webb was fined $s'.r for drunkenness." "• I <Before"^s^k^Em\A]^;^/^^ | James Carroll was brought up^ on a charge of I drunkenness. and; indeqent' exposure at the Heath- | cote Ferry. The'charge. was : preferred by the Cora--11 m'ss'ofle^''°f Police:1';-A- previous conviction for ft rankenness having, been, proved, the prisoner1 was «| fined £2,-and com^ltll^to.^ 11: <B^bre'John B^,l; E^ %M^ and_ a |uii^ench.) If | rVHe^^rpw^,a)^J^hom^ ■mL were severally fined, for fiavirig horsfes^ifc large ;ia II K^he town. The. two first ss. each, forgonei horse; M »the last 155., for;three.;horses at.large.ov." .'. ■ ' ftSl_ Thomas ril!on: and Eichard Su>cliffie Were sumf S?100^-^ the ; police, for ;ob^ructing; the public WW??^!^. i>y. lathering horses in them, contrary to lajSnf ordinance.; ;spth the;deifendarits:admittedi;he^ Iliigparge, and;werelned: Wllsoi,^,foroiie horse: i;;^^fflateliffe;.lsa. t 'for-three.;. V';;. ;^ ? "'■; ";■;"; :-» : :-- ■■ W^M^^^-^^^S wa?.clikrged with furious,riding ■Pl^ osi *he Papanui bridge. Defendant adiiiitted I-iip^. i^ e> and s^^d• that • he; was endeavouring ;K:|i||: head' 6Opie horses.;: Fined lOsv and;cautioned. • ; - , ■.; -. BBEAipH. OF..CENSUS' ACi. 1..:... ..' / ■ •^lilii;V anwS:Gan\mocl£ i was^summoned' by John Price, i^"" enumera<1or for collecting the' census in the leathcote district,.for refusing to fill up the cen- |« *chedule: previously -left with him iii a proper iwaer. Defendant had entered winder- the head of pigious Denomination the- tfbrd ' Gammockite,' |p^::ttel^;..to;the>'<oonrt.■^afc-^-obuideroii■h^hßd ||lttuch right to founda religious sect asCalvin »d other such persons. The court considered that he proyisionsof the Act had been' clearly and injntionaliy infringed by defendant. The full penalty m - £20, which he had, deserved]^ rendered hioiself »ble to, but the court were disposed to mitigate ie fine to if^;defendant would fill up afresh »rm Hi the proper manner, whi6h the court now «,ve him the opportunity of doing; but in the event : his still persisting inhis refusal to comply with ie regulations of the Census Act, the full penalty ould be enforced. JQefendant then altered his ligious denomination of ' Grammockite,' entering msejf as '• No Religion." BEEACH OF BHEEE OEDINANCE.

;|li;? T .;- V. WILSON.: - . '.; . ■':■ -iiif aair 8i a r 8 Waßon appeared to answer a charge prefflggfi bvßobert Chapman, of Spring Bank Station, f|l|." vIS?^ ross tbe ™n in his (complainant's) occul!lS'V >n) i! Blieep, without due notice, as required J|»law, having been1 given. -Defendant admitted -JWjrChairge, and stated that the sheep were driven, i'fflß^jy.to *"3 orders,- while he had gone to give *Bf S hapmapnotic(?- •• Ponvicte^, and fined £50. " IgSir William Cojjgreve, Bart., .was charged ■by P. 1 W Boulton^ Inspector.- of Sheep Sot; the Southern gi^tncfc of. the Province, with having 800 sheep in lIP Poweswon on'the 7th" ofJanuary last, which I if re nofc with the letter S, according to I■''&*' the *aid sheep having, been previously de» ffl^red scabby; on the 29th; Noyßrober, 1858.: flB Mr. Duncan appeared jbr ;! tKeVprosecntion, and i MX* Dampier for the defendant.. :..> a ip'ke (actof thenon-brandinghayinglieen adra jtted, ; Wt the defence, defendant's counsel' urged that there 'sK n° J u- reason, ■°PP<>se that these sheep, r RnJch he said appeared' mi evidence to be partly Morn and partly anshora, had; riot- been branded Igth the-letter S on the long wool, between .the; |Pth of Nov. andsthe 7<h of; January, which brand |fflL Waß reasonable to infer had .been, removed: with |ffi c clip, and as was shown had been replaced on the 'HE Jannarv, only four days-after^ the offence Wto alleged to have been committed. It was urged; Jpothat the usual practice amongst sheep farmers |i»B to brand all together after shearing, and not'in ipbtets, and that Sir William' Congreveherded and *m a tflS shee.P m'■ the meantime, and had. taken ■JP ue precautions, consistent with reason and iP 0 , keep farming, to cornply-with the .prescribed •|pgulationß. .. •:; ...., -......; ....■; ... .- t \ ■■ ,'.' II Court was then cleared for considerationof the ■M Be ' *n^.De'ng re-bpen«di judgment was given with «• observation, that the Court was of opinion Ik j Waß *raPoSß^'e todraw the inference which iWL e'en^anfc'B counsel had urged upon< their consiiff atlOn > namely, the probability of the sheep hav'lE a-'?d botween the period from *he 29fcU

Nov. to the 7th,: Januaryj.cthere was not,the: shghtestground for so doing}, there was no cvi-! qenoe to. substantiate this inference, but mthertho contrary; while the very fact that defendant's counsel-hud not offered to prove a point which he lnmself made of such importance, led the Court more strongly to Relievo that the presumption sought to be established was entirely unfounded The case was proved, and the only point that the: Court could deliberate on was the amount of penalty to be inflicted} the law had been broken and it was clearly a ease in which tho plea of ignorance could not be used to palliate such infringement. Ihey should mforce the fino of £40 accordingly. ■••»•■■..• *'*v'

• • SAME V. SAME. A charge on a second count was then brought forward by the same Inspector of Sheep against Sir Wm. Congreve, for having on the 7t5, cfay of January last, suffered to stray 100 sheep infected I^T&fir%\ C*W a*k' t mn>^ next to that of the defendant It appeared in theevidence i v W« Jtor..tJat he had met Mr. Chapman's shepherd driving about 150 sheep which hid been ■£?^S P0?f M£ OhaP man'B «»• The Inspector could identify these sheep, as their brands con-es-rt 9qh Se °\ thf 8he °P «en ad .examined on the 29th of November last at Sir W. Congreve's stahon when the flocks had been declared scabby and. defendant entered into the prescribed bond to dean Ins sheep ; and the Inspector had not since that time passed them as clean. William Miles, shepherd to Mr. Chapman, was then examined This witness deposed to havino found, on the 7th of January last, about 150 of Sir W.Oongrevessheßp, about-three miles within the boundary on Mr. Chapman's side; certain appearances m these sheep in driving them to their bwner ledlum to suspect they were scabby, and his sus. picions were confirmed two days afterwards, by. his finding twoi scabby sheep on Mr. Chapman's run, one oi winch, being unshorn, bore the same brand as those which he had previously driven off the run • these two sheep he had destroyed because they were diseased. 1 here were no other sheep branded in this way m the neighbourhood. Defendant himselfstated in exculpation that he had done all in his power to keep his sheep in security, putting them in his paddock at night, and shepherding them by day that, the night before the day in question, a severe storm of wind and rain had taken place, and that notwithstanding their efforts during the night to keep the sheep in the paddock these few had managed to escape in the darkness, and had gone down. to^Mr. Chapman's run. The defendant was convicted, and fined £50. ; <

... . . - :> ;. ■ ; SAME. V. SAME. - • •.-.... A third charge was then brought up by the same against' the same. This was for'- having in possession 800 uhbranded sheep; ■ ' &; Mr. Dampier for the defence admitted that the sheep mentioned in the information were the property of defendant, but submitted that reasonable time had not been allowed for branding. Defendantwas convicted of the offence against the law and fined £40.

■'-■'. '■ ••• :- SAME V. SAME. .'. ,' -. ■' At fourth charge was also proved against the same, for non-registration of brand. The brand used by defendant was a brand formerly used by Mr. Adams. Mr, Adams had given this brand together with the branding iron to' defendant, with a, verbal authority to use the.same, on Ist October last; it was a registeredlbrahd.- A written authority was then handed in from Mr. Adams to defendant, giving permission to usethisbrand.butthisauthority had been given; only yesterday. The■ Court considered that, it was'dearly proved that defendant had^not a registered brand of his own, neither had he the authority ieijuiredby law to use the brand m question. : Convicted,"and fined £5.

SAME ■y.'BEITTIN; , , ' John P. Brittin appeared to answer a charge of having 200 unbranded sheep in-his flock. Defend^ ant admitted the charge, and stated that materialstor branding these sheep had been lying at Demtord s House, on the Rakaia, addressed to another person, and in consequence of this he was not aware of these materials having come up. Pined £5.

ADAMS V. M'IEAN. T. K. Akams,lnspector-of Sheep for the' Northern district, brought a charge against John M'Lean of the Waimakariri district, for having in his possession 4000 sheep, above the age of three nionths; not branded on the wool thereof with the brand of the said John M'Lean. Mr. Darnpieif apbeared for defendant. . . : ; . ' ' '■■:-: ■; >'

„^ he facts of fcnis case '^ere these: Mr. John MLean had purchased a flock of sheep at Mr. Robinson's station in the Nelson province, and had there branded this flock with the letter R, which is the same brand as that used by Mr. Robinson in Nelson. Mr. M'Lean had- adopted this brand as his own in the Canterbury Province, and the question was. whether, as this brand had not been registered by Mr. M'Lean, the flock were to be^ regarded as branded in compliance with the Ordinance or not. . :

The Court were of opinion, that this being the brand of the owner of the sheep, the sheep were branded, although the intention of the ordinance was that the brand should be the registered brand of the owner, for that registration constituted ownership of brands. The case was dismissed; A second charge was preferred against the same, tor non-registration of brand. Defendant's counsel admitted the charge. Convicted, fined £5.