POLICE COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 2, Issue 577, 24 September 1880, Page 2

POLICE COURT.

MASTERTON, THURSDAY.

[Before H. S, Wardeu, Esq., R.M.] Ingram v Darley.— Breach of Borough by laws on Tuesday last by driving- without lights. His Worship commented on the; Borough by-laws, which did not, in his opinion, make sufficient provision for proper lights. Fined 5s and costs. His Worship said that he understood in some instances fines had not been paid, and it would be well for the Council to take action for their recovery. Ingram v W, Dixon.'—Breach of the by-laws by driving without a,light. Fined 5s and costs. Ingram v J, H. Corbett,—Breach of Borough by-laws by allowing a chimney to catch fire. Complainant said the chimney was, very foul, and in a very dangerous state, Fined 20s and costs, . F, G. Moore v John Tuck, Mr Bunny for plaiutiff,—Charge of failing to destroy" the rabbits on his property within seven days after due notice had been given. Mr Buiiny wished to amend the information by addiug the words " not taking efficient steps" "to destroy. Mr Tuck objected to amending the information, The Court said the amendment must b$ granted, but the case might be adjourned' if the defendant was taken by surprise. ■ The defendant preferred-the case to go on. • ■■ • ■■■ . The Couit asked Mr-Bunny—the action: being laid under the Act of 1880—whether, that Act was retrospective in its-penal-clauses, the notice having been served under the Act of 1876. " : Mr Bunny said the notice was given to the defendant on the 24th of July." The Act of 1880, which came into operation in August, did not require a fresh notice to be served. The Court held that unless the Act of 1880 validated the notice given under the. former Act Mr Bunny had no case. The Court dismissed tli&'iuformatioii, the new Act. being in its opinion not retrospective. , i The defendant asksa for his expenses. The Court pointed;; out that the proceedings were taken'by the Trustees, as a matter of. public duty, and thought the defendant .might ou this ground waive his claim. Defendant, however, pressed for his expeuses, and those of his witnesses, The Court-allowed 5s for expenses of witness, and 10s for defendant'ts expenses. Mr Bunny stated that he would withdraw two other informations which had been laid by the Trustees against other parties. .J. Payton vE. Lancely.—Debt,- £i 17s Gd. . Judgmeut for amount and costs. W. J. Nathan v Robert Brown.—Debt £ll4s, Mr Beard for plaintiff Judgment for amount and costs. W. J. Nathan v ,W. Budd.—Debt L 36Gs9d. Mr Beard for plaintiff, Judgment for amount, and costs. Same vT. Brag»ins.—Debt LI 14s 9d. Mr Beard for plaintiff, Judgment for amount arid costs. Same vH. Aulin.— Debt L 6 lOd, Mr Beard for plaintiff. Judgment for LI 9s 7d and costs. ; Same vJ. Stuckey.—Debt Ll4 3s 3d. Mr Beard for plaintiff, Plaintiff nonsuited with costs.' ' Same v Thomas Bennett—Debt, £l4s 7d. Judgment for amount and costs. Same v Thomas Bentley.—Debt £l7 4a 4|d, Judgment for amount and costs. Same v Wm. Butler.-Debt £sl7s 9d. Judgment for amount and costs. Same v Richard Allen.—£lß Is, Judgment for amount and costs. Same vP. J. Armstrong.—Debt £2 4s Id, Judgment for amount and costs, T. L, Thompson v R.J. Greening.— Debt £4l9s 9d, Judgment for amount and costs, M.' Caselherg v Peter Thompson.— Debt £l9 9d. Judgment for amount and costs, James Maginnity v Duncan McLachlan. —Debt L 6 8s 6d, Mr Parker for defendant. Judgment for defendant with costs.