RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 124, 23 June 1870, Page 6

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., R.M., and H. Bastings, Esq., J.P.) Thubsday, June 9. Inspector of Slaughter Yards v. R. M'Kimmie. — R. M'Kimmie was charged with having slaughtered a bullock without giving the statutory notice, in accordance with section 13 of Slaughtering Ordinance. Mr. Copland, appeared for the defence, and Inspector Percy for the prosecution. Mr. Copland objected to the information on the ground of its not being sufficiently explicit to enable him to conduct the defence. In the information there was nothing to shew what was the colour, whether black or red, or whether it was horned or not, as it is usual in such cases to be very explicit ; in this case the information was very vague indeed. The objection was overruled, and the case was proceeded with. It appeared also that the information was laid under the wrong act, but to this the learned counsel made no objection. Constable Henderson, being sworn, •deposed — I am Inspector of Slaughter Yards for this district. On the morning of the 3rd June, about 11 o'clock a.m., I received information that M'Kiinmie slaughtered a bullock at his yards. I got no notice from him

of his intention to slaughter on that day. Notice is always given to me in writing, and I file them. On that day I found the carcass of a bullock on the gallows, apparently killed a short time previous. The hide was so covered with mud that I could not see the colour with certainty. I cautioned him repeatedly about the careless manner in which he sent his notices to

Cross-examined by Mr. Copland. — I keep a book. I have not got it with me. I did not get the notice of 3rd June until late in the afternoon of the next day. lam not certain whether I inspected the bullock on that occasion or not. I produce the last notice given me by M'Kimmie, dated 2nd June. It was given to me by a boy in his employ. The notice prior to the one produced I can't find. The next date back is the 17th May. I believe I got a notice from him between these dates. My book will show me the date of the notice between the 3rd June and 17th May.

As the book was not in Court a short adjournment was spoken of, to which Mr. Copland objected. He said that the Inspector should come to Court armed with all papers and books. This should be his first act. He further said if their was any case it should go on, and, if not, it should be settled at once. He strongly objected to such adjournments.

The Bench took exception to some of the remarks of the learned counsel, and, having given a» satisfactory explanation, the Bench ordered the book to be produced.

On looking at my book I find that the last entry of notice from M'Kimmie is on the 17th May, at 2 p.m. No other notice is entered until 3rd of June. I received no notices from him between those two dates.

The Bench remarked that the last statemeut was a strange one, as in his chief evidence he said that he had got a notice between those periods, but that he could not find it — a few clays before the 3rd of June.

Witness continued — All notices given me are inserted in the book now produced without fail. Ido not enter them every day, sometimes a week intervenes from the time of receiving them until instered in the book. Meantime I place them between the leaves of the book. It is my duty to give quarterly returns to the Government.

Cross-examined by Mr. Copland. — I cannot find any list other than that produced. To the best of my belief there was an entry of R. M'lCimmie's, and the book should correspond with the notice. I believe it did so. In the book there is a yellow heifer oa the Bth. In the entry in book their were three head of cattle. My modo of proceeding is as follows : — I go to the yard on receiving notice. I don't take my book with me. I generally take a memorandum. I don't keep the slips. I fill up my book at my convenience, sometimes sooner and sometimes later. The book only is a copy of the brand. On notice there are three head of cattle, and in book on'y one as being killed. Mr. Copland, for the defence, stated that their could be no doubt that the business was managed" both by the Inspector and his client in a very careless manner. The facts of the case were these — Some time about the 2nd of June M'Kitnmie gave notice of his intention to kill three head of cattle, but on that occasion he only killed two, leaving a third still unkilled. This one was killed some days after svards, and was the one seen by the Inspector. M'Kimmie having given notice previously, he did not think that he was doing any wrong by not giving notice a second time.

Two of M'Kiminie's lads were exam iued. Their evidence went to show that there were three head of cattle in the yard, and that two of them were killed early in the week, and a third some days later. The Bench, after considering the circumstances of the case, dismissed it.