Before H. Kenrick, Esq., R.M. Tuesday, April 14, 1885. Criminal Cases.

Te Aroha News, Volume II, Issue 98, 18 April 1885, Page 2

Before H. Kenrick, Esq., R.M. Tuesday, April 14, 1885. Criminal Cases.

G. Bobson v. E. Voysey v (Arijourued ease). This was an action brought by the PuWic Vaccinator against defendant for- failing-.to^Ukj^.or cause to be taken, his child to the. Public'Vaccinator .for the purpose of' being vaccinated within six months after .birth. . It having been proved that the child had since been vaccinated, the charge was withdrawn. Defendant having to pay expenses for mileage 4s. '' . Win. Wilson v. E. Had'ifield. No appearance of defendant. This was an action bronght under thd Impounding Act against defendant, tot allowing a bull to wander at large on land not bein^ in his lawful occupation, fiz., on plaintiff's farm at Waiorongomai. Chas. Tugell, who resides on Mr Wilson's farm, was examined >n behalf of plaintiff, and proved the trespass. Defendant was fined £5, and ordered to pay costs 17s. Later on in the day defendant put in an appearance, and gave as his reason for non-attendauce earlier,4hat his w.fe bad been taken suddenly til in the night, was still very ill, and he could not get away ; defendant now applied to have the case re-heara. His Worship fixed three o'clock in the afternoon as the time for re-hearing the case. When brought forward at 3 o'clock additional evidence was adduced, from which it would appear the defendant went in search of the bull shortly after ifc broke away from his farm, drove it out of plaintiff's land, and had it ca3-, trated same day. His Worship reduced the penalty inflicted to ss, and remarked with respect to the very contradictory evidence given during the case, that there could be no doubt whatever one side or the other had. not spoken the truth in the matter.

Civil Cases. , W. Wilson v. E. Hadfield, claim £6 value of a cow driven away by defendant. Chas. Pugel), sworn, stated : I reside on Mr W. Wilson's farm at Waiorongomai, and on or about the 14th March saw defendant drive his bull and one ot, Mr Wilson's cows off the farm. He drove the cow round the paddock with dogs, and rushed it through the fence* I told him he d hare to fetch t he cow t>ack again. Hh put it out on the run with the bull. Have not seen the cow since. W. Wilson, on being sworn, said ; Before bringing thi.« action I spent two days myself looking for the cow. X f wrote to defendant asking him to lirin^ !>ack the cow. Afterwards 1 met him in Waioronaomai, spoke to 'him,, ami told him I should have to summons him if he did not brini; the cow back. Ho told me to do my d — n best. I havo not seen the cow since. It is valued for £6. Judgment for £6, with costs 12s j judgment to be rclnce-i to 5s if the cow was returned within 48 hours. Jolmi Gallagher, British Hotel, v. Jas. Warren, claim £iO for 25 beds reserved for defendant for four nights afc 2s hi per night each: This case excited considerable local interest, and arose out of an agreement which plaintiff states was entered into by him with Mr Warren's waiter, acting on behalf of his employor, whereby plaintiff was to reserve 25 beds for the use of v sitors corning to defendant's hotel, as ft large number of excursionists were expected during Easter week, the time when the agreement was stated to have been made. A number of witnesses were examined. Defendant denied that any definite? contract had ever been entered into, and stated that the arrangement was that.!)© was to have, the use of 25 beds if ,he should need them, which he di I not. His Worship remarked the engagement, if sue!) had been made, must havo been very vague indeed, and each side construed it differently. Judgment would be given for the number of beds for one night, viz., £? 10s with costs, in all amountjng to about £6.