HARBOR RATE.

Patea Mail, 14 September 1881, Page 3

HARBOR RATE.

PATBA PUBLIC MEETING. A meeting of ratepayers, convened by the Town Board Chairman on the requisition of Mr Dale and others, was held last evening in the Council Chamber, “ to consider the question of imposing a rate on property situated within the proposed borough of Patea, for the .purpose of improving the entrance to the river. About -60 persona were present, including Messrs'Wray, Tennent, Dale, EJ. C. Horner, Barton, H. E. P. Adams, W. Williams, York, R, A. Adams, Coutts, Bright, Milroy, J. G. Beamish, U. Burke, Lett, A. Black, -Eyton, Sherwood, Gibson, J. Black, Potto, J. Whelan, Malcolm, Howitt, Christie, Deane, Davis, Holtham, Barker, and numerous o»her ratepayers and residents. Moved that Mr Milroy take the chair. He declined. Mr Milroy moved that Mr R. A. Adams take the chair. He declined. After a pause, Mr Tennent moved that Mr Sherwood take the chair. ' Mr Bright seconded. Mr Sherwood : Well to expedite business I will take the chair. This is a very important matter you are assembled to consider this evening. Business being formally opened, he called on the first speaker.

The business then commenced. Our lengthy report of the speeches is crushed out of this issue by late telegrams and advertisements. The result may summarised for the present thus : Mr Dale proposed that latepayers within the proposed borough are willing to be rated on a loan of £IO,OOO for harbor improvements. Mr E. C. Horner seconded.

Mr Tennent and Barker supported. The resolution in favor of rating was carried by 13 votes, 2 hands being held up against. Of course so small a number of votes could give no weight to this decision as pledging all ratepayers within the proposed borough. Mr Tennent then moved, and Mr Gibson Seconded, a motion asking Major Atkinson to proceed with the bill. After discussion and queries as to whether the bill could be passed before Parliament rose next week, Mr Houghton read a telegram received just before the meeting, to the effect that the Standing Orders of the House require four weekly notices to be published in district before a rating bill can pass through Parliament. He said it was clear these notices could not now be given, but the public discussion would be useful towards a popular understanding of the whole question. He bad asked to make this telegram known before the previous motion was put, but the Chairman had ruled he was too late to speak after the mover had replied. Mr Tennent protested that the discussion had been a waste of time, and that Mr Houghton ought to have informed the meeting earlier. Mr Houghton said he supposed the promoters of the meeting would have fralrf'ii tha same precaution as himself to ascertain whether there was time to pass the bill, i He considered it was a duty to tell the meeting what he knew, as soon as this point arose in the business.

Several persons spoke amidst grumbling and laughter. The meeting broke up suddenly. Some persons said the whole thing Was a farce from the first. Others •aid there had been a useless waste of time.

Patea P.M. Court. Tuesday, before C. A. , Wray, R.M, and Dr Croft. BORROWING A CHEQUE.. A Wanganui cattle-dealer named Walters was charged with giving a valueless cheque in purchasing a horse, value £6, from Thomas Hollywood, at Manutahi, on the 9th August, with intent to cheat and defraud. It appeared the defendant was driving a mob of horses, and bought one from the complainant, borrowing a cheque on the bank of N.Z. from a storekeeper, and filling it in hastily. Defendant said he did not notice at the time that the cheque was on a bank at Patea. He banked at Wanganui. Sergeant Donovan said the defendant has a banking account at Wanganui, and there might have been a mistake in making out the cheque. The complainant did not therefore* wish to press the case, and the police would not do so under the circumstances. Case dismissed. ASSAULT CASE. Mr Barraclough, butcher, w*assummoned for assaulting Mr S. Hunter. Mr Barton appeared for complainant and Mr Hamertou for defendant. Stanley Huijter said : 1 am a civil servant. On the night of the Bth instant I was returning from choir practice, with other persons. One lady with us had a dog, and 1 had Mr Dasent’s dog following me. Passing Mr Barraclough’s butchery, two other dogs rushed out, and the four commenced fighting. I kicked Barraclough’s dog once, and the other dog once. Then I stood on the footpath, and suddenly Mr Barraclough rushed out of his shop and struck me with his fist in the ribs, knocking me into a deep mudhole in the road. He gave me no warning. After he struck me he said “ It fakes a man to kick my dog. ” Cross-examined : He pushed me with his fist closed. It was not a blow, but his fist was closed. Mr Hamerton ; Did he not push you aside to get at the dogs. Plaintiff : No, he did not go to the dogs. Mr Hamerton : Well, I hope he will not go to the dogs. However, did you not fall by your foot catching the kerbiug and tripping you up ? Plaintiff : No, I was knocked into the road. Mr Hamerton : Your counsel says you were knocked into the middle of the road. That road is 66 feet wide : did he knock you 33 feet into the road. Mr Barton : No, I don’t mean to convey that idea of measurement. Plaintiff : When I got up, Barraclough was squaring up to me, and said “ It takes a man to kick my dog.” I declined to fight. B. C. Horner : I was present, and saw Mr Barraclough rush out and give Hunter a violent push. He appeared to fall backwards over the raised kerbing into a mudhole three feet in the road. While in the act of pushing him, Barraclough said “It takes a man to kick my dog.” As Hunter was getting up, Barraclough sparred at him. I think Barraclough expected resistance, and- was preparing for it by sparring. I have said since that I was surprised he did not go for me. Dr Croft : Do you think he went for Mr Hunter because he was the smallest man ? Witness : I cannot say. The blow seemed sufficient to push a man down. For the defence, Mr Hamerton said the case was exceedingly trivial, and ought not to have been brought before a Court. There is a lump on Mr Barraclough’s dog’s ribs the size of an egg. There was an assault, but was not a blow. It must have been provoking to see bis dog, worth £25, set on by three other dogs, and then to see this young man kicking his valuable dog. Kicking is not a proper mode of separating fighting dogs. It was not the assault that has brought this case into Court, but the fact that the plaintiff happened to fall into a mudhole in the presence of ladies.

Defendant said : I was inside and heard dogs fighting. I went to the window and saw Mr Hunter kicking my dog’s ribs pretty stiff. I went out and put my fist against him with a push, and then he caught his heel against the kerb and fell into the mud. I did not strike him. Two dogs were then on my dog. Both dogs were Mr Dasent’s, and were worrying my dog, which was held down between them. I pulled one dog off by the tail, and hit tho other with my hat. That was enough to separate them. I don’t remember sparring, but may have done so in the heat of the moment. I have been offered £2O for my dog several times. One of the ladies evidently thought her dog was in

the wrong, for she began to kick if. What I did was done through annoyance. 1 had no intention of fighting. Cross-examined : I pushed him with u sort of jog-trot, with my hand closed, in a temper. I only put it against him. I should be very sorry to strike anybody but a man. He would not have been pushed over if he had not balanced over the raised kerb. Robert Aldritch, butcher, said ; I was in the shop, and saw Hunter kick the dog two or three times. That dog was lying down, with two other dogs over it. Hunter fell from a bit of a shove and then blundering against the kerb. Mr Wray : The bench are of opinion that an intentional assault was committed, and that is shown by defendant sparring. The dogs might have been separated without kicking, but if the defendant thought he was injured by the kicking of his dog, he had his remedy, and was not justified in taking the law into his own hands. The Court will inflict a proportionate penalty of 20s fine and costs £1 15s, or seven days. Mr Hamerton objected to have the other counsel’s fee charged against defendant in such a case.

The Court allowed the fee, and the money was paid.