THE COURT LAUGHED

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 333, 21 September 1932, Page 3

THE COURT LAUGHED

(Special to the "Post")

BLENHEIM CASE RANGER'S AND SETTLER'S AMUSING DUEL OF WORDS. WHAT THE SHEEP DID.

Blenheim, Monday. An amusing encounter was witnessed at the Blenheim Magistrate's Court on Monday morning betvveen John Moore Kelly, the borough stock ranger, and William Ramsay, whom he charged with grazing sheep in Leifcrim Street, in defiance of the borough by-laws. The defendant pleaded not guilty, but the ranger gave evidence that he watched the sheep being grazed for an hour.

Defendant advanced with an air of a K.C. to tbe cross-examination of the ranger, and an amaazing dialogue arnused the court, his Worship allowing the party plenty of rope, while Ramsay shot hundreds of apparently inconsequent questions at the witness. On one or two occasions the questions were dismunderstood, with laughable results. Didn't you accost me a week before?" demanded the questioner. "I certainly did not curse you," declared the witness indignantly. "I did not say 'curse'; I said 'accost'," said Ramsay, pityingly. "Didn't you say the sheep were making a'mess of the footpath?" "Of course they were," replied the witness. "They were not only making a mess of the footpath, they chew up people's hedges!" Turning to his Worship, the witness declared that Ramsay kept 23 sheep and had only two small paddoeks, which were covered with stones. "That's what he feeds them on," he said. "He puts hurdles round their necks to stop them getting through people's fences, but they rear up on their hind legs like goats and chew off the tops of the hedges.' iLaughter.) "About this footpath mess, proceeded the defendant. "Isn't it a fact that when I challenged you, you could not tell the difference between the matipo berries off the hedge and what you accused me of!" Uproarious Laughter. The laughter which greeted this question developed into a roar when the witness gravely proceeded to demontrate, with full deta ls, that he was well aware of the difference. "Well, let us drop the natipo business," suggested his Wor-Up, hastilv, before the witness could advance the whole of his expert lcnowledg3. The parties agreed by tacit consent, and the cross-examination took another turn. "What did you say to me when vou

spoka to me a week before?" demanded the defendant. "Just tell his Worship that!" The Witness: That was the time you told me to go to h ." (Loud laughter.) "Never mind what I told you to do; what did you say about me?" proceeded the questioner. "I never said a word," replied the witness. "I only watched." So the questions went on for a quarter of an hour or so, and then the defendant played what he evidently regarded as his trump card, challenging the witness to produce his written authority to act as ranger. Witness: The Borough Council can do that, I suppose. "But you can't produce it! Come on, now, let us have a look at it — if you have got it." ' The witness appeared nonplussed, but was reassured by the borough solieitor, who said the matter was immaterial. ' 'Idmm At the conclusion of the eross-exa-mination, the defendant, with rnuch legal ap'lomb, confidentiy' submitted that he had no case to answer, but on his Worship ruling otherwise, he hopped into the box to give evidence on his own half, and the magistrate was not kept long in doubt as to wliat Mr. Kelly was alleged to have said on the occasion to which Mr. Ramsay had ref'srred in his cross-examination of the complainant. The "Old Beak." "He told people," related the defendant, "that if he wanted to get a fine all he had to do was to prosecute Ramsay, because the 'old Beak' never believed a word I said!" (Loud laughter.) The witness went on to state that he had not grazed sheep on the streets, but hau merely been driving them from one paddock to another.

"Then why should the ranger prosecute you?" inquired his Worship-. "Sheer animosity," was the response. "Just that your Worship." At the conclusion of the defendant's evidence, his Worship said he would not convict, in the absence of eorroboration of Mr. Kellys evidence. The case was dismissed.