RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2210, 4 June 1891, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Geraldine—Tuesday, Mat 2,1891

[Before 0. A. Wray, Esq., R.M., and , H. W. Moore, Esq., J.P.] ALLEGED BREACH OF THE TOWN j BO ADD BYE-LAW. j Robert Henry Pearpoint was | charged on the information of the i Chairman of the Geraldine Town Board, with having charge of a.bull ( and permitting same to be with cows ; in a public place. Mr P. Wilson Smith appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr J. W. White fer defendant. Mr Wilson Smith opened by stating that the information was laid under Section T, Bye-lay V, of the Geraldine Town Board constituted in the Town District Act 1881, under Sectien 36 of that Act. The power bad been granted to municipal corporations of making bye-laws. The board had made certain bye-laws, and also the one in question. Mr Pearpoint rented a reserve from tbs Queen in certain reservations. The. reserves being in the middle of the town with public roads on either side, and private residences on one side. The land let being a public domain and reserve. On this reserve Mr Pearpoint was in the habit of keeping a bull and other cattle, and also of allowing other people to run cows with the bull. Complaints had been made to the town board,' and Mr Pearpoint had been requested several times to remove the bull, but bad refused to do so. It could not be proved that strictly Mr Pearpoint bad permitted the offence to take place, but he had suffered it to take. According to the dictionary the words “ permit ” and “ suffer ” were synonymous, and Mr Pearpoint’s action in putting tbs bull among the cows and allowing other people to do so was equivalent to permitting the offence to take place. It was ridiculous to say that because he was not on the spot to prevent the offence that he did not permit it te take place. Robert Hammond, farmer, residing at Geraldine: Remembered 22nd March. Saw the bull about 3 o’clock iu the afternoon. He was on the road abutting the reserve. It was about one chain from the oval. He saw the bull with a cow near where about a dozen boys were standing. The park was a place of public resort, and football was played there. By Mr.Wbite: Witness saw it take place from the road leading between the twe parks. There was a very high gorse edge between the road and the park in question, bat be saw across a small gateway. He had seen the bull dozens qf times from his house, but went out on the road on this occasion for the purpose of getting a better view. He could see over the hedge right along the road when riding. The main road was higher than the level. The boys were sitting on a fence about three or four yards from the bull. J. Dean, jnnr., employed by Mr Pearpoint: Deposed that he 'locked after Mr Pearpeint’3 cattle,. > The cattle about one week since consisted of two heifers, two cows, and one bull. Other cows got into the domain. His instructions about other cows were “not to allow them to keep in the domain unless told to do so.” Was occasionally told to allow them in. Nathaniel Dunlop, resident of Geraldine; Deposed that he knew the reserve was lot or rented to Mr Pearpoint. Saw a bull with a cow in the park on one particular Sunday. He could not give the date; thought it was in February. It was not in March. He was not in the domain but on the road. Saw over a little gate near Hammond’s paddock. Could distinctly see the domain from the road. This park was not what was called the “ park proper.” It was let to Mr Pearpoint for grazing purposes in order to bring in revenue. By the Bench; It was a good distance from the school. About 40 chain he would think. The children went there sometimes to play. To Mr Wilson Smith: The school was about two or three chain from the northern point of the dordain. A stile had been placed there for.theuseof children passing through the domain to save the breaking down of the fences, which the children were in the habit of doing. The children had the right to go anywhere they liked in the reserve. Mr White submitted that there was no case to answer. One essential piece of evidence which ought to have been given in order that the information could be laid at all, had not been given. The corporation as a corporation could not lay an information, some person must be appointed by the corporation to do it. i Mr White read the Town District i Act of 1881, Section 51, in support of his statement, and continued bis ( defence by saying that in the present ( case the information had been laid by Mr White, chairman of the board. He might have been appointed to make the charge, but there was no evidence that he bad. He submitted under 1 these circumstances thatthe proceedings were at a standstill. .. I In reply, Mr Wilsob Smith said it was ridiculous to say that no person eenld lay the information except one authorised by the town board, because 1 my person could lay it, Mr White vas chairman of the tewn board, but le appeared for him in laying the nformation. _ * Mr White, continuing, said that « Mr Pearpoint held the park in ques- 0 ion for grazing purposes. He put p lis cows and bull and other cattle into n

this place, and if the occurrence in question did happen from time to time. it was not with the permission of Mr Pearpoint. He submitted that if Mr Pearpoint was in the wrong any man living near the town by putting his rams and ewes together in the same paddock would make himself liable to prosecution, if the paddock could be seen from a public place. 0. E. Sherratt, clerk to the Geraldine Town Board, gare evidence relating to the by-law in question. He could not say whether the bylaws were published in full or pot, Robert Henry Pearpoint deposed that he bold the land in question for grazing 'purposes. He put '<’en it horses and cows for a long tine, and afterwards a bull. The paddock .was securely fenced from public gaze. Ho never heard complaint from anybody except a few members of the town board. He put the bull and cows there for grazing purposes. He was a member of the town heard at the time the by-laws were made. He did not know whether placardiref the by-laws were posted up about the town; they might have been. He believed they had been published l in the Gebaldink Guardian. He had tried to get the papers, bet could not get them in time. He did sol know tbs dates of publication. By Mr Wilson Smith : He did not have chi if control in making the by--1 laws. He thought at the time that 1 they had been properly made, but he 1 did not think so now. He had made a > charge against a person for allowing cattle to go into the park. He was a 1 member of the School Uommittee. 1 Arrangements had been made to put • up a stile for the children going across | the park. He did not know that the ■ children had a right to cross the park. • He had been been down at the pad- X 1 dock, and very rarely saw anyone 1 there. The bull was in a separate paddock from the oval where football > was played; the bull could make its : way up close to the oval .if it,liked. Hover had any complaints thatthe [ bull was feeocioss; he did not put the i bull in the park foe the purpose of : making money. People put their cows ! in without permission sometimes. [ Mr J. W. White said that Section > 339 of the by-laws could only be made with a Special Order. The first they ■ heard of the resolution was November ■ 2nd. There was a resolution made that new by-laws should be made on > on October sth, and notice of motion i was made to that effect by members of 1 the board. It would be necessary ’ to hold a special meeting in Order to i have adopted that resolution. A 1 meeting was held, which he thought t was a special meeting, on. November i 16th. 11: the resolution had been r adopted at that meeting . everything ’ was in order up to that time. Bat • before that could become a special 9 order another meeting would have to i be hold, end then a subsequent meett ing not less than four weeks thereafter. The only evidence ef any ? meeting being held in oqlnnection witbl i the by-laws was that of the 25tlr • November, that being only nine days I after the 16th, instead of four weeks • being allowed to lapse. The reason » af the four weeks elapsing was that>f" > that the public might knew that they ) intended to take a final step to pass i the by-law, and that the public might have opportunity to object if they - eared to do so. He submitted that, 1 apart altogether from the question of ‘ whether the by-laws were advertised ■ in the newspaper, the special order ■ was clearly essential. Mr Wilson Smith in reply, said that they had Mr Sherratl’s evidenos, and the evidence of the minute books. Minute books were not infsllable. They bad also the evidence of Mr Pearpoint himself that the bye-laws had been made in the proper order. His Worship: “ But the special order ? ” Mr Wilson Smith ; “ There might 'JT' have been other meetings which wera not reported. Mr bberrat't did not swear that there was no special meeting held,” His Worship: “It was not shown in the records presented to us by Mr Sherratt.” Mr Wilson Smith : Oh, very well, if your Worship takes the evidence to be so clear— His Worship: I don’t see that I can take it any other way. It simply means that you have no bye-laws at all so far as we can see.’’ Ihe case then fell through, but at a later stags Mr Wilson Smith intimated that Mr Sherratt, the town clerk, bad since found record of a meeting held on January 4th. Hia Worship pointed out that there were four meetings to find, and Mr Wilson Smith replied that there were only two, and said that; be wished to take further proceedings. The Bench having no objection an adjournment was granted for fourteen days. CIVIL CASES. W. S. Maslin v, Elizabeth Powell— Claim £4O 2s 6d. On a promisory note on demand. Mr Wilson Smith appeared for plaintiff, and Mr J, W. White for defendant. . Judgment was given for plaintiff for amount claimed with costs, less 6s 8d interest. DOMESTIC DIFFERENCES. Sarah Quaid v. Michael Quaid— Asking for sureties of the peace. There was no appearance of defendant, who was ordered by the Court tb find two sureties of £5 each to keep the peace for six months, in default six months imprisonment,

Christina Davey r. William Davey -—Asking for two sureties of the peace.—Mr Postlethwaite appeared for defendant.-—After evidence of a contradictory nature the case was dismissed. The Court then rose.