R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 38, 12 January 1884, Page 2

R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Before J. Booth, Esq,, R.M.) TODAY. DIU44CH OF WHS. CATTLE ACT. Th»s ease, a portion of which appeared in our last issue, was resumed to-day. Mr, Nolan, for the defence, argued that the prosecutor, Mr. Hall, had no right or power to lay the information. Mr. Kenny denied the objection, and quoted various authorities to show that any person could lay the information, except where the Act specified to the contrary. His Worship agreed with Mr. Nolan, and was of opinion that Mr. Hall had no power to lay the information. The Impounding Act, which was a local one, provided its own machinery for laying informations; He based his opinion on section 10 of the Act. Mr, Kenny could not see that section 16 affected the question of laying the information, His Worship would not say who was the proper person to lay the information. He was of opinion that Hale had no power to do so. The case would be dismissed. Mr. Kenny gave notice of appeal. Another information was now laid against Mr. Beeves for allowing five rams to wander at large. Mr. Nolan now raised an objection against this information on the ground that it had not set forth that the rams were over six months old, consequently no breach of the Act, under section 16, could be shown. Mr. Kenny applied for leave to amend the information, but Mr. Nolan objecting, his Worship ruled the objection fatal, consequently the information was dismissed. TRESPASS. The same parties were again engaged in this case, which also arose out of the former, On going into dates it was found that the information was laid the day before the alleged offence was committed. Dismissed. Another case of trespass was now gone into, and resulted in being dismissed on the grounds of no proof of ownership. Three other cases between the parties were withdrawn.