RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1155, 23 September 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

This Day. (Before J. B. Poynter, and A. Graham, Eaqs., J.P.’s. Bbeach of Bobouqh By-laws. William Goodall was charged on the information of John Bourke, the Town Clerk, with having, on the 17th instant, contravened clause 12 of bye-law No. 3. by driving ten horses along Childers Road without the written permission of the Town Clerk. The by-law in question was made under special order of the Council on the 14th Feb., confirmed on the 28th of February last. It i« to the following effect: —“ It shall not be lawfvl for any person to drive any horse or horses or cattle loose through or upon any public street or thoroughfare within the Borough without the written permission of the Town Clerk.” The defendant admitted the offence. Mr J. W, Nolan, who appeared for the Borough Council in this case, said that it was not the intention of the Council to pres, for a heavy penalty, but ho might .tato the defendant had not acted in ignorance, seeing that only a few daye previously he had obtained a written permit from the Town Clerk to drive tome horse.. He considered that an example should he made, a. it was the first case that had boon brought before the court under the amended by-law. The Council had been at a very great expeneo in making the road, and forming the footpaths, and ho considered it was only right that they should be protected. Mr B. C. Fryer came forward and said that he would like to say a few words with the permission of the Bench. The request being granted, Mr Fryer said that he had gone to Mr Bourke's office eg) the Saturday previous to the alleged offence in order to get a permit, in fact ho had gone two or three times but could notflnd Mr Bourke. The horses were his (Mr Fryers). He said that there was much more danger in leading horses than driving them, in fact it was only the other day that a boy was nearly killed in leadingsoine horses ta the paddock. The Bench said they would like to take Mr Fryers' evidence. This was done, and that gentleman repeated what ha had previously stated. Mr Nolan said that he should like to call Mr Bourke. John Bourke called, and stated that he saw the defendant on the day in question, vis., Sunday, the 17th instant, at 6.30 p.m., drive a number of horses along Childers Road at a quick gallop. He saw defendant do the same thing in the morning. The horses were all over the road and footpath. There was a man and a lad behind the horses but there was no one in front of them. This was the first ofibnee under amended bye-law. . Ho would have given a permission to the defendant to drive the horses at a walking j pace. Mr Fryer mint have come to his Office ; after office hrrtifS, the Council ofiftetw were i

closed at noon on Saturdays. Mr Nolan then called Mr C. D. Bennett, who stated that he was Mayor of Gisborne, and that he saw the defendant on Sunday last driving his horses at full gallop along Childers Road.

The Bench then asked the defendant to go into the witness box and give his evidence. On being sworn the defendant said that the horses were only trotting along Childers Road, but when they came to a by-road they broke into a canter. The horse he was riding was going at a walking pace. The horses were about 100 yards in front of him. The Bench here asked Mr Nolan whether he could suggest the amount of the penalty which should be inflicted in this case, and whether or not the Council would be content with the infliction of a nominal penalty. Mr Nolan said that this was entirely a question for the Bench to decide, and it was not in his province to suggest the amount of the penalty to be inflicted. The Council did not wish to press for a severe penalty, nor did they wish that only a nominal tine should be imposed. All that the Council required was that the bye-law should be regarded, and that the defendant be cautioned not to break it again. The Bench said that it was quite clear that a breach of the bye-law in question had been committed, and the defendant would therefore be fined £2, with costs of Court, 75., but no solicitor’s fee would be allowed.

Mr Nolan applied for his Worship the Mayor’s expenses. The Bench granted him 10s fld, and Mr Nolan thereupon stated that the money might be handed over to the Hospital.