S.M. COURT.

Otaki Mail, 8 June 1923, Page 3

S.M. COURT.

OTAKI—THURSDAY. Before J. Logan Stout, Esq., S.M. UNREGISTERED FIREARMS. Police v. Charles Hunt.— Charge of being in possession of ail unregistered shot gun, (2) being in possession of an unregistered rifle. —Defendant pleaded not guilty to both charges. Constable Satherley said defendant had stated that he had applied for registration, and added that defendant had said that lie had applied to the polio.' in Wellington in January, 1921. Records, however, could not be found in the office of the Department. Defendant said he had posted a letter for registration, and therefore thought everything in order. The S.M. said under the circumstances he would dismiss the case, but advised defendant to register his firearms at once. Police v. Cecil Keasberry.—Charge of being in possession of an unregistered revolver. —No appearance of defend- 1 There being only a technical breach j of the law the S.M. dismissed the I charge. \

FAILING TO REGISTER. Police v. Patrick Alien:. —Failing to register under Part VI. of the Defence Act. 1909. —Defendant stated he did not register because he had a doctor'.certificate. The S.M. said there was no exemption for not registering. Fined 10s., and costs 7s. Police v. L-lira [loach.—Similar offence.—Defendant admitted he had no! registered. Constable Satherley said he and oC cm had advised the lad to register.— ) Fined 10s., and 7s. costs. ] WANDERING STOCK.

George Watson (ranger Cor the Horowhenua Comity Council) v. Gilbert Glover.—Charge of allowing stock to wander.—Mr. Watson stated thai eleven eons were impounded off Riugawhati Road, and that Glover had been frequently warned.—Fined -Us., and costs lis. lid. George Watson v. Joe Grant (Mr. Atmore,).' —Charge of allowing eight calves to wander at To Jloro. The ranger stated Grant was the most absent-minded person in the county, and that his stock was frequently on the road.. Mr. Atmore said there were extenuating circumstances, fences of a property, which Grant had just bought, being in a state of disrepair. —Fined 10s., and costs Us. (id. RAW OFFAL FOR PIGS. T. C. Webb t. inspector of Stock) v. b'eiton Deakiu (Mr. Atmore) .—Charge of allowing swine to be fed on raw offal from slaughtered stock. Defendant pleaded not guilty. All witnesses were ordered to leave the Court. The Inspector stated: On May 2ud 1 visited Waikanae and went to Deakin's slaughter-house, where Deakin slaughtered. 1 saw Iwo men go to the pig run. and also saw Casey and Padden, and asked them what they had done with the offal. Casey said "It is just there.'-' 1 went to the pig run, and j»a« 1-J to -U pigs and the offal of about . six sheep, a bullock, and a i or 5-month j old calf. The pigs'were uating the raw eSCaI. 1 reHmiwd to the slaughterhouse and taxed Casey with feeding pigs on the raw offal. He acknowledged the offence, and said a number of othe rbutchcr* were doing the same. , i told him of the disgraceful state of | affairs and he was impertinent. Dca kin has been previously cautioned. On several other occasions I saw indications of pigs being fed on offal, parts being found on a barb-wire fence. Ike coppers for boiling the offal did no! Eeein to have been used for some time. To Mr. Atmore: I did not ask Casey if he had been forbidden by Deakin to give the offal to the pigs. Casey was very abusive. I told Deakin that 1 saw jv.di-'.uons that he fed hm pigs en in Offal. Deakiu did not deny giving offal jto the pigs, and said it would nor occur again. In April, on two occasions, there were indications of offal being fed to pigs. Deakin, he considered, was responsible for his servant's actions. To the S.M.: Casey said other butchers were doing it, 'and that butchers, across the river were also doing it. .Tames Paddon stated! I am a labourer and 1 remember May 2nd when the Inspector visited the slaughter-house. Casey had done some killing, and given raw 'offal to the pigs. Case*- acknowledged this, and was abusive to the Inspector. I have never seen raw offal given to the pigs before. I have cooked some for the pigs- v. i To Mr. Atmore: I was .instructed to cqols offal for the pigs, and told that '_u touid not be given raw. Walter Redward stated: I am a butcher, and remember meeting the Inspector on May and. I accompanied him vo the slaughter-house, and saw the raw offal which had been given to the EiS*' , . Mr. Atmore submitted that the information should be dismissed, there being no direct knowledge of the act because defendant did "not feed to swine. The offal was fed to the pigs contrary to instructions. H e maintained if servants acted against instructions the information should bo dismissed. Deakin stated: I am the defendant. Before the trouble I instructed my men on, several occasions not on any consideration to give pig*. ™w offalLl remember .the Inspector that I should be sure that all he offal should be cooked. I sent Paddon on tka. pa ticular day to boil the oilal "J-™* .bort-handed, and told h.m to cook xt before giving it to the pigs- - 1 w I! f r instructed-the to boil the offal. If Casey gave raw offftl to the Pigs it was against my insert instructions. , To Mr. Webb: I seldom go to tat s laughter-yard-I trust"my men but I previously cautioned them Th* capB,r» tk«ra W*« boiling down tfi aad-

offal, and were frequently used. James Casey stated: I am employed by Mr. Deakin, and admit giving, some raw oll'al to the pigs. Deakin had often told him not to feed with offal. I gave the pigs a little to keep them quiet—it was the first time I had fed them. To Mr. Webb: I remember saying the butcher across the river was doing the same thing. The S.M. held that Deakin was liable for his servants, and pointed out that he hud been warned bul without effect, therefore a fine of £5 would be inflicted, costs £2 bis. lOd. Leave to appeal was given, security being iixed at £2O.

CIVIL CASES. Te Horo Co-op. Dairy Co. v. E. A. Guilford— Claim, £sl l(ss. 9d.— Judgment by default, costs £7 7s. Frank Higgott v. W, O'Mallcy.— Claim. 14s. -Id.—Judgment by default. J. Fairlcy v. A. Strawbriclgc. —Claim. U Ms. id.—Judgment by default, costs Alex. Jenkins v. Mrs. Free. —Claim. £2 lis.—Judgment by default, costs 23s (id. i Morgan Carkeek v. M. Hunia.— Claim, £6 I<J*. —Judgment by default, costs £2 Is. fid. Harry Yates v. W. Be van.—Claim. £4 15s. 2d.—Judgment by default, costs 265. fid.

Dr. Sharp v. Tom Stewart.—Claim, I£7 17s. 6d.—Judgment by default. j costs £2 ds. A. J. Robinson v. P. Taniihana. — £4 Us. (id. Judgment by default, j costs £2. ; A. J. Watts v. Utiku Hapeta. —Claim, £2.—Judgment by default, costs 295. lid. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Auto Trimming Co. v. Geo. Ayre.— Claim, £ll 19s.—Order made for payment, in default seven days-' imprisonment. Morris Rluch v. Geo. Ayre.—Claim, £5 2s. Id.—Order for payment forthwith, in default seven days' imprisonment. A. E. Anderson v. W. S. Budge.— Claim. £(! ISs. Id.—Order for payment forthwith, in default seven days' imprisonment. H. Yates v. Rota Hohipuha.—Claim, £4 10s. Sd. —Order aiado for payment forthwith, iu default seven days' imprisonment. Sisters of St. Joseph v. K". Ilakaraia. Claim, £G 12s. Gd. —Defendant said he was married, had cighl children, and could not pay anything at present. He bad no rent coming in, except 275. a year, and was not working.—No order.