RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 651, 1 April 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, 29th March, 1867. (Before H. M'Culloch, Esq.) E. Moore "was brought up charged with provoking a breach of the peace and damaging property. John Macdonald gave evidence to the effect that on the previous evening the prisoner and some others were drinking at his house. At closing time the party refused to leave. Witness put out the lights, closed the bar and went to bed. A dispute afterwards occurred and- three windows were broken, he believed by prisoner. In reply to questions from the prisoner, witness denied that he knew the party was playing for money. Witnesses were examined— their evidence in the main confirming that of Macdonald. Prisoner admitted breaking a window, stating in extenuation that he had been to a sale that day and had taken a drop too much — that he was sitting playing cards till two or three o'clock that morning, and intending to go away, roused the prosecutor to get a drink. The latter, he declared, attacked him and threw him down — some of the others rescued him, and he went outside and i threw a bucket into a window before starting for Harrisville, where he resided. He had been followed by the police, apprehended and locked up since in very uncomfortable quarters. Mr M'Culloch said the prisoner appeared to have fallen into bad courses lately, and he would advise him not to follow them longer. Macdonald, however, had not acted as he ought when the party refused to leave his house at the proper hour^-he should have called in the police/ The first charge would be dismissed. For the damage he should adjudge the prisoner to pay <£2, the amount to go to the Crown and not to the prosecutor. Mr M'Culloch oautioned the prosecutor against allowing cardplaying in his house. J. W. Raymond appeared to answer an information, preferred by H. Gh Fielder, Scab Inspector, charging him with having on the 4th day of December, 1866, unlawfully refused to afford reasonable facilities for the inspection of sheep belonging to the said J. W. Raymond. Mr Macdonald appeared for the prosecutor j Mr Harvey for the defendant, Mr Macsostaza &ft e ? stating ths case

to be proved a breach of the 29th clause of the Sheep Ordinance, said that he was asked by the Inspector to request of His Worship, if the case were proved to his satisfaction, to inflict the highest penalty . allowed. He did so on the ground that the objects of the Ordinance would be frustrated if such- conduct as that of the defendant were permitted. Since the occurrence .of the circumstances stated Mr Fielder had met with great difficulty in his duties, . v the owners, of adjoining runs having said, " Oh, Mr Eaymond would not let you examine his I sheep — why should we ?" The first witness called was H. G. Fielder, Inspector of Sheep for the Province of Southland, who stated that, in the beginning of November, he communicated with Mr Eaymond, requesting him to muster his sheep for inspection. (Letter read.) Eeceived a reply from him. Letter read as follows : — " Invercargill, 12th November, 1866. ? "Sib, — My sheep will be. mustered about the end of this month, and put through the yards purposely for my neighbors to draft out their strayed sheep — of which due notice will be given. You can inform the " Sheep Board", (whom you state have given you instructions to again inspect my sheep) that when you have exculpated yourself from the charges I have brought against you, in your official capacity, I may permit you to examine my sheep. In the meantime I ignore you as a fit person to examine my sheep, andpositively refuse to allow you to do so. I may inform you this is the only notice I shall take of your intimation of this date. My neighbors will have a splendid opportunity of seeing for themselves whether my sheep are diseased or not at this drafting. lam sir, " Tours &c. " (Signed), J. W. Eaymond. "H. a. Fielder Esq." On the 24th November witness pro-, ceeded to defendant's station, where he saw Mr Jenkins the overseer. The sheep were not mustered ; the manager told me there were some rams he could see on Monday. "Witness said he could not wait. Eeturned after getting away about a quarter of a mile, and said to Mr Jenkins that he wished they could arrange amicably for the inspection of the sheep. Arranged with him to have the sheep mustered on the 4th December, at the home station, and went there on the morning of 4th December, meeting Mr Eaymond on his way to the place, He called out " what do you want here with your ugly face." Witness said, " I wish to see your sheep." Defendant refused to allow him, saying something about the Board. Witness then rode away, hearing defendant mutter something, but he did not know what. Witness saw that the sheep were mustered alongside the yards, in charge of the manager. In cross-examination by Mr Harvey, the witness stated that defendant obtained a clean certificate in May last, and that witness had only seen the sheep once since. Had not been four times to the station. The sub-inspector had been there once since under witness's instructions. Was not aware that defendant's refusal to permit inspection was on account of grave charges of dereliction of duty he had preferred against witness, which were then pending. It might have been. He did not say. he was willing to allow any other inspector to examine them. G-eorge Sewell, overseer at Hillend Station, remembered being on Captain Eaymond's station on the 4th December last. He asked witness to go over the sheep, and pick out any scabby ones. Witness said that was not his business; he only came to look for stragglers ; it was Mr Fielder's duty. Captain Eaymond said he had defied the Inspector and the Board. Cross-examined by Mr Harvey — I am sure those were the words used. I was then on the Dipton Station. H. G. Fielder recalled— lt was on Mr Squires' requisition that I visited the station. Mr Harvey expressed regret that, from the nature oi the case, he could not call Eaymond as a witness. He alluded t« I the differences that had arisen among j the station owners in defendant's neighborhood, and the annoyance to which he had been subjected from having frequently to muster his sheep. Captain Eaymond had, in connection with these differences, laid heavy charges against the Scab Inspector, and pending an investigation by the Sheep Board, had applied to it to have an honorary inspector sent to examine his sheep. He had subpoenaed Mr Cowan, the chairman of the Board to prove this. The charge being a criminal one, he hoped that, under the circumstances, the court would exercise its. discretionary power, and, if a penalty were inflicted, to make it as light as possible. If there were no excuse or reason for the refusal, it would be a different matter, but the defendant had felt strongly that the Inspector was not, while the charges were pending, a fit and proper person. ' Mr M'Culloch — Still he was the Inj spector — I do not see how this can be j ! urged in mitigation of penalty. Ctjthbert CfiiVAff, chairman of the Sheep Board, provecT that at the time named in the information certain charges preferred by Captain Eaymond against the Inspector were pending, and that the former applied to have his sheep examined by an honorary inspector. (Letter read,) Witness had applied to the informant Mr Squires to see whether he had any objection to that course, and he replied that he had not, but wished the honorary inspector to be accompanied by Mr Fielder. Mr Squires gave aB a reason for the requisition, that. Mr 'Bastion's sheep had crossed the river. Mr M'CtriAobH said ifc was clearly . proved that Fielder went to inspect, and,,' i th?rt so msw&tye faculties were offered^

He did not think the fact of the charge then pending had anything to do with the case.: He should inflict a penalty of £30 and costs. But for its being -the first case, : the amount would have been greater. ; ' '" ■ . "^v!