R.M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 249, 1 October 1884, Page 2

R.M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Before J. Booth, Esq., R.M.) THIS DAY. Forgery. Watene Otutu, for forgery, was remanded until the 9th instant, for the production of witnesses. Bigamy. G. W. Marshall, charged with bigamy, was further remanded for a week. Breach of the Bye-laws. John Score was charged with a breach of bye-law No. 11, for hawking meat without a license. Mr. Bourke gave evidence that defendant had a license to kill meat at Patutahi, but refused to take out a hawker’s license. Mr. Finn for defendant, admitted having sold meat about the town. To Mr. Finn—The bye-law is the provision ihe Council have made with respect to hawkers. A register of hawkers is kept. Anyone who sells about the town is a hawker. Butchers having shops in the town are not hawkers. Mr. Finn submitted that the information disclosed no offence. The defendants were charged with selling meat, about the Borough, whereas the bye-law arid within the Borough. Mr. Bourke thought the objection frivolous. His Worship thought he would have to dismiss the case, and granted a professional fee of £l. A similiar case against A. Score was withdrawn. On the suggestion of the Court fresh informations were laid, and the Court adjourned till 11.30. On resuming, The plaintiff, Mr. Bourke, gave evidence to the effect that he saw the defendant, Score, hawking meat on the Saturday, and the defendant admitted that such was the case on the Tuesday following. During cross-examination by Mr. Finn, the plaintiff said if he did not see Ihe defendant, Score, it must have been an hallucination.

Mr. Finn submitted that the informations were bad. There was nothing to show that the meat had been hawked, and I here was no evidence to show that the plaintiff had power to issue licenses, the authority for which coukl only be given under a bo -ough by-law, but which was not the case. With regard to ‘he case against Score, if his Wor c 'peon

victed the defendant it would be on an hallucination of the plaintiff’s. His Worship said a breach of the by-laws had been committed by the defendants coming into towr and bringing .neat in public carts, and not having a place in which to exluoit their meat in town, and going from house to house selling it. That, he took, was the definition of the word “ Hawker.” It was hard for resident butchers and tradesmen who had to pay their rates, while these men had not. He would fine them each £2, with costs 10s.