POLICE COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 3, Issue 702, 25 February 1881, Page 2

POLICE COURT.

i( , MASTERTON,THURSDAY. < (Before fl. S. : Wakdei,e, Esq., R.M.) Sergeant M'Ardle v Charles Hefner.Drunk while in charge of n h'ofse. : _ Frederick Barratt deposed; On the 18th inst. he saw the accused at-the Railway Hotel, and afterwards he met him on the road to Greytown.' Accused wiis too drunk to sit his.h'orse, and he feiloff it,' Defendant pleaded'thatit wasafallfroiii Ins horse, rather than the liquor, which had made him incapable. Judgment was reserved till the'liearin'g of the case of J. G. Vallance against him Sergeant M'Ardle v Charles Sherlock'. —Cruelty to animals and'breach of Public Works Act on the 19th day of February. ' Mr Bunny, for defendant, pleaded guilty. Charles Dixon, called,.deposed that on the 16th inst.; he saw the accused holdinohis horse by the bridle in- Renall-streoC and beating it about the head and 'with a stirrup iron. Mr C. Auketell and Mr Henry Yates were also present. The horse was bleeding from the nose and from a cut above the eye. He continued hitting the horse for about ten minutes, and again commenced illusing it further up the road.

lii answer to Mr Bunny; Sherlock appeared to kve been drinking, but not to be druuk. The horse was a quiet and tractable one. Mr Runny, in mitigation of punishment, said that the horso had previously thrown his client, and lie was irritated by this and also by the liquor which lie had taken, He claimed that the defendant was an honest, hardworking, industrious man.

His Worship said that the offence of being "drunk when in ■charge of a horse was provided for under the Public Works Act. In all cases of this kind which had been brought before him his practice had been to deal seriously with them, us offenders risked not only their own lives but the livos of other peop[e. Th o other offence of cruelty was •clearly proved, but ho would not deal with it as a deliberate cold-blooded act. For drunkenness when in'charge.of the horse he would inflict a fine of £3 and costs; and for cruelty tu the horse £2 and costs. In case of dofault 14 days' imprisonment iii each wise, one sentence to follow ttio other. The coats amounted to £2 10s, 0. A. Briggs w'f. Kilburn.-Judament Muunotu, £17165. Mr Skipper for plaintiff.

It was stated that two pounds had been paid, since judgment, atid a promise had been made by defendant to pay £5 more within n fortnight from that payment. The fortnight not having expired, the case was struck out, T. B. Williams v John Williams— Debt £2. Mr W.M.Easthopo appeared, by power of attorney, on behalf of plaintiff. Defendant ordered to pay the amount claimed and costs, • • Phillip Neil v Cornelius & Sheeham - Debt £G 3s. Mr. Collins for plaintiff, Mr Bunny for defendants.' A set off of £3lss was handed in, and £2 was, acknowledged to 'have been paid

into Court. At this stage of the."proceedings the plaintiff, who was helplessly drunk," lyiii« on a form in Court, was removed by the Sergt. of police, and'Mr Collins threw up the case, remarking that the-pontiff had been reduced to his present conditon by oue of the defendants. Gprringe v Oorbett -Interpleader m 4s, Mr Bunny for plaintiff, Mr Skipper for defendant. The counsel stated tliat a settlement had been arrived at between the parties out of Court. A. 11. Bunny v Christian Hansen.— Judgment summons £llos. Ordered to pay by 12|o'elook on Saturday, or go to prison for 14 days. J'. 0. Vallance v Charles Hefner.Breach of Public Works Act, soction 99 Mr Bunny for plaintiff, the accused bein« undefended. ■ n This was a charge of a rather serious nature, the lives of the plaintiff and two ladies having been placed in jeopardy by the defendant's action. J. C. Vallance deposed that on the 18th mat. he was driving home from the Taratahi in a buggy to which two horses were attached. There were also his wife and Bister in the vehicle with him He noticed a man some distance ahead of him holding a horse, which presently broke away from him and came galloping past. The man followed, running in the middle of the road, holding his arms up and

shouting for him (witness) to stop, When the man got so close that there-was a danger of running over him, he pulled up the horses, when accused immediately seized their heads and commenced swearing, using very bad langurge, calling him (witness) among other things, a b- clerk out for a holiday. He endeavored to make the man let go, but could not, Accused commenced backing the bu«gysidoways into the ditch near. Had if gone in it would have been smashed, and the occupants injured. He kept his foot on the brake, and applied tho whip to keep the horses from backing. The ladies were much alarmed. He asked the assailant to let the ladies get out, but this he would not do. Looking back along tho road to see if there was any prospect of help, witness saw that ayoung man whtfhad previously passed them on horseback had caught defendant's horse and was watching the proceedings. He (witness) called and beckoned him to come to his assistance, upon which Barratt, (the name of the young man), hitched the defendants horse to tho fonce and rode up to where they wore, ntid looked on. He (witness) appealed to him for assistance, and Barratt then got off his horse, walked over to the fence, and hitched it up, and then walked towards : the horses' heads, which the accused then released. Whenaskedhis name accused first said " Wouldn't you like to know," and afterwards, that he was " Mr Brown, from Masterton." There was no doubt that if he had removed his foot from " the brake the biiggy must have gone over, •■'.

.Defendant:, "Was I in a sensible state when you saw me on the road.?".. . Plaintiff: I cannot describe your state in any other matiner than I have.' ■'■ • His Worship asked the accused what he had to say in answer to' the charge, ~ He stated that he had been sent up to Masterton to get some yeast, l by' His employer, MrR, Freeman, baker/of Greytown. The horse l he rode was a; very restive one and threw him, when oh the Taratahi, He (fell on' his : -head;;, which swelled up very much; and also' hurt his shoulder. He did his business in Master-

ton and, not feeling well, had two or three Kinases of beer at the Railway Hotel." He did not take eqough,to make him drunk. When on tho Taratahi his horse again threw him, and from that time he did not ; know what occurred. He had no remembrance of stopping anyone, or using bad language, fie was very sorry that he had done as the complainant had stated, but he knew nothitig whatever of it. ••■The police in reply to his Worship,; stated: they .knew nothing against the maiii' '■,' ... ' '. ..

1 ..• Hia.-Wprahip Stated that the only notice , that could be taken of the defence setup, was,to give him the option of a fine, in place of sending him to prison at once, If ! the Court admitted the plea of ignorance . of offence in justification for assault by drunken nien, there was no saying where it would lead to. Such conduct as thataccused had been guilty of must be resl trained. For being drunk whilein chargo • of a horse lie would fine him 40s and costs; for obstructing Mr Vallance,4os and costs; and for the use of abusive and offensive language, ?0s and costs, or in default, one months' imprisonment. The expenses in the different cases amounted to £5, T)ie Court gave defendant 14days for payment of fines and expenses. ■T. Telford v J, Y. Smith.-Breach of Sheep Act, in failing to clean a flock of sheep. The Inspector reported finding scab on ' two sheep and avery scabby, lamb, which was unmarked;,and that one of the former had apparently not been dioped arid bore slight scab marks. He was 'satisfied generally with-the steps that had been taken at the station to clean the flocks. In answer to Mr Smith, ho stated that he had been unable to visit the station on the 20th of January—tliq date when he should have visited it, Had he been there on the 20th the scab might possibly not have been apparent. ' The scab he saw on the 4th of February was, in his . opinion, a fortnight old. He bore testimony to the fact that every effort had been made to clean the sheep. Thomas Dillon, manager of Mr Smith's station at Whareama, expressed his opinion that the scab discovered was from 7 to 11 days old. On the 20th sf January he did not believe that the Inspector would have found any scab had he inspected tho sheep. Tho case was then adjourned, as. the Inspector received an instruction to employ counsel. In the afternoon it again came on, Mr Beard appearing with the Inspector. In his examination, the latter said he had no doubt that one of the two scabby sheep and the long-tailed lamb were scabby on the 20th January. The conduct of the defendant and his manager had been perfectly straightforward and open. They had had a fair muster, and had not attempted to deceive the Inspector in any way. He was. aware that Mr Smith had a whare on the Government and adjoining the run, arid believed he lad been employing men to kill stray sheep'on. that land, He (the Inspector) had gone oyer the Government land with two sottlers, and had killed seveu oroidit sheep with threo-yearold fleeces on, but there was no sign of scab on them, The cortificato of defendant had never been cancelled before its cancelling in 1880 ; since then no clean certificate had been given for this (lock. Mr Board addressed tho Court, and quoted from the Statute, showing that the opinion of Inspector was final in such cases, and his opinion was that the Bheep were scabby on tho 20th January. ' Mr .Telford, recalled, stated on His oath that in his opinion the dry flock was' infected witli scab on the 20th January. The defendant said he had little to say in defence, but thought the inspection should be,made as close to the three months specified as possible, as flockowners would thereby be saved much inconvenience and loss of timo, Ths side' of his land next to the Government land was unfenced, but he had now the material on the ground, and intended to have the whole run fenced in. (This ho would have- to do .at his own oxpense, as he could not come upon tho Government to assist. His Worship said the case was rather a tod one on defendant, but the Act left him nothing to do but to fix the amount of the fine. If the Insoector was of the opinion that scab existed there was no appeal. He felt no hesitation in this case, however, in inflicting the minimum penalty rf 3d per head on the flock of lutoe'ed sheep; the Inspector had spoken as favorably as an Inspector could speak of a defendant. Tho fine would be 3d per head on 2,500 sheep, and costs £1 Bs. It tho sheep were still infected that day six months a penalty of 2s pa.- head might be indicted.

Ingram v W. Cul!eu.-Alk.win« a chummy h, catch fire. Fined 20a and costs. W. I Nathan v W. St. Glair Ho«an— Promissory note, £l4 U 3 Id, Mr Beard tor plamtift. Judgment for amount and costs. n ?° ffry i !f in " v Blinkhorn & Peacock. Debt, m la. Mr Beard for plaintiff. A promissory nolo had been given for tho amount, but only £lO had been paid. Judgment for 123 7s and costs-interest being allowed.

Henry Bannister v It. Hare. -Breach oflabbit Act. Mr Beard for Trustees. Mr Haro disputed having been served with legal notice, and asked that the case might be dismissed on that ground The plaintiff stated that he bolie'vod the notice had been served by the former inspector, Mr Campbell. A summons had been applied for to secure his appearance, but it had not been issued. His Worship stated that as that was tho fault of an officer of the Court he should have to adjourn the case to that day fortnight, The same v W. Clapnam was also held over. Several cases were settlod out of Court and some adjourned to next sitting.