The Courts.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume XLV, Issue XLV, 13 July 1917, Page 3

The Courts.

(Before R. J. Acheson, Esq., S.M, and Warden). Tuesday, July 10th. POLICE COURT. Griffiths was charged with being in the possession of liquor during the currency of a prohibition Constable Bandy prosecuted and deposed that on 11th May, at 3.30 p.m., he saw accused in front of the hotel at Patearoa. Deeming his conduct suspicious, he went after him, and when about 20 chains from the hotel

overtook him and asked what he had in the bottle in his pocket and requested to see it. Defendant handed over a bottle of whisky (produced), and

said he got it down the flat. He was a prohibited person. In reply to the Magistrate Constable Bandy said he had sampled the contents and found it to be whisky. He knew the difference between whisky and cold tea. It was a first offence. —Fined 40s and costs 7s: in default 14 days' imprisonment in Dunedin. Defendant did not appear.

Arthur John Sharkey was charged with being drunk in the main street of Ranfurly on 30th June. Mr Fraser for defendant pleaded Not Guilty. Constable Bandy gave evidence to the effect that he had occasion to speak to accused on the day in question and called him out of the hotel. Found he was drunk and arretted bim. Constable Lee (relieving constable at Ranfurly) and F. Meggett, stationmaster, gave corroborative evidience as to the condition of accused. Mr Fraser's crossexamination was chiefly in the direction of showing that the police's action was the result of their suspicions in another case—thetheftlof i'l from the railway station. Constable Bandy admitted his reason for speaking to ac-

cuse'd was to make inquiries about the

matter. Before defendant gave his , evidence, His Worship pointed out the accused was charged with having been found drunk in a public place. This was not correct: he was in the hotel until the constable <*alled him out. It was not competent for a policeman to invite a man oat and then arrest him. Being' drunk in a private rlace was not an offence. It was a common practice with the force to try and get a drunken man ontside and then arrest him. but it was a very improper thing to do.—He would dismiss the information.

WARDEN'S COURT. George Byers (Mr Fraser). —Residence site, la,. at Kock and Pillar., Mr Fraser said there was another | Bimilar application (Hanora Balkind,' matron, sanatorium, for a residence site, same locality), and he had arranged with the objector to have both applications adjourned till next court day.—Adjourned accordingly. An application by T. C. Hore for , surrender of a claim in Spec Gully was accepted, and an application by the same applicant to surrender part of a mining privilege was adjourned till next court day for production of a plan. (Mr Fraser for applicant).

MAGISTRATE'S COUi.T. G. Botting v. John Fr ncis.—Mr Fraser appeared for plaintiff and defendant conducted bis own case.' Mr Fraser said that the claim was for two sbeep alleged to have been delivered to the defendant, but they were abandoning their claim in respect of one. Plaintiff bought certain sbeep from Kawarau, near Cromwell, and brought tbem to.Naseby. When taking them from his farm to bis slaughteryard five of them broke away. Two days later he discovered them on the farm of Mr J. Whitehead, fie arranged with the latter to keep them there, shear them and keep the fleece and brand them with, his own brand. | Whitehead shore two of them and I branded tbem with his own brand I EW. That was in 1915. In April, 1916, while plaintiff and defendant were dipping at C. Inder's dip, tbe sheep with this brand became the subject of dispute. The sheep Botting brought from .Kawarau were branded with 1Z ana had a fork in the near ear and a front bit and punch hole in the off ear. Francis's mark was a club in the near ear and a front bit and punch hole in the off ear. The sheep was claimed by defendant's brother, whose sbeep ran on defendant's farm. The sheep had since been sold. The claim for the sheep was £2. G. Botting gave evidence along these lines.

Chas. Whitehead deposed having seen the fiv<* sheep mentioned on his property. Three escaped and he shore and branded two. Both the sheep were disputed at the dip and he said they were the sheep shorn by him. Considered valuing tbem at L2 each was not out of the way. In cross-examination said he knew L. Francis's mark too well to s iear then- by mistake.

C. Inder deposed to having found the sheep amongst his stragglers. When defendant came to have a look at them hj« told him he thought it belonged to his brother but the earmark was apparently badly done. Francis took it away. At dipping a dispute took place between plaintiff and defendant. If fat, tfte sheep would be cheap at L2. ' Plaintiff again went into the box and added to his former evidence that when he jvas driving the two sheep from Whitehead's one of them jumped ioto an elevator hole, and he pulled it out with a piece of wire. It being exhausted, he had to leave it there. Next morning he saw it with Inder'« sheep. It had Whitehead's brand. For the defehce, R. L. Francis said that after J. Francis informed him of tHe dispute, be examined the sheep and satisfied himself they were his. Botting told hira he bought the sheep from Bob Nevill, but on making inquiries he found the statement incorrect. Some of his sheep got R Whitehead's every year, and he have branded it by a mistake. Id a mob of 200 sheep at LI a The disputed two were in the but he took them out owing to the te; or they would have been sold each. Afterwards be sold them

at LI a head. When shearing he offerad to refer the dispute to C. Inder, and Botting said he would get him. Later Botting handed him back a similar sheep with the same earmark that got among some he (Botting) sold.

John Dillon corroborated the evidence about the dispute when shearing. By request he went through the sheep, and found fully 20 with the same earmark.

John Francis deposed that he received the Bhuep from C. Inder, who said it belonged to bis brother Lewis. He took it to his. farm and told his brother. Later he took it down to Inder's for the dipping, where Botting claimed it in a casaal sort of way. Several times latn he made the claim and witness on various occasions asked bim to see his brother and get the matter settled bat eventually plaintiff replied "I look to you." His Worship reviewed the evidence at length. .He decided to join L. Francis with J. Francis ■as a de- ; fendant, as the court could join in any persons it thought necessary. He came to the conclusion that the sheep handed over by Inder was one of those that strayed on to Whitehead's. In giving it over Inder noticed the brand d:d not correspond with Francis's, and would no doubt have not given it over had be known of Botting's purchase. It seemed that defendants relied largely upon Inder's statement that the sheep belonged to L. Francis. Selling it with a mob did not value the one sheep Judgment would be for the £2 claimed, cost« of court 10s, solicitor's fee £1 6s, and witnesses' expenses 30s.