R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 3, Issue 893, 7 October 1881, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

[Before H. S. Wardoll Esq,, B.M.]

MASTEMM, THURSDAY

. Ingram v H, Jones.—Breach of Borough by-laws by leaving a cart unattended in Bannister-street. Defendant did not appear, and was fined 15s and 7s costs. A few minutes later he showed up, and his fine was reduced to 10s. THE INSPECTOR AT BAY. Sutton v G. Moore.-Breach of Sheep Act in not obeying a herding notice. Mr Bunny for prosecutor, G. Moore-It win impossible to comply with an order to herd sheep at night, and on that ground I plead " not guilty." Defendant then commonced reading a letter fmm Mr Fred Maunsell, giving his opinion on the subject; but the Court stopped him, and expressed a desire not to hear what Mr Fred Mauusell had written. The Inspector said that all he asked Mr G. Moore to do was to put a man on to keep the open boundary at the back of his run. His sheep were badly affected, and this step was necessary, The Court—The question, Mr Moore, is whether you can keep sheep at all under the Act, You cannot plead not guilty when you admit that you did not carry out the terms of the notice. Mr Bunny said that if Mr Moore undertook to keep a man regularly stationed ou the boundary line his client would ask for ihe minimum penalty allowed by law. Mr Moore—l asked the Inspector to en»aj!e a proper man and send him to me, hut he refused to do so. Afterwards I placed a man there in a wlnre. He cannot, however, herd the sheep at night, as mis is not yet laid at the Whareama. The Inspector, sworn, deposed that he visited the station on the 18th of August. The flock were just dipped, hut they were so badly infected that one dipping would not cure them. Yet they were turned out on to the run. One sheep which he caught wa? scabby from ihe back of the ears to the tip nf the tail. Mr Monro—ln the opinion of the Inspector.

The Inspector-" It was rotten, and ought to have been at once drafted out of the flock." He issued a herding notice th» next day to prevent the sheep straying into the Crown Lands, and from thence to other properties. On the 22nd of August he re-visited the station, and found no man placed on the boundary line as he hud suggested, Hence the proceedings which he had taken.

Mr Moore proceeded to Bbow that in May last the Inspector issued herding notices without having due grounds for such action.

The Court was not prepared to review the Inspector's action in May last. Mr Moore persisted that as the Inspector had found fault with him, he had a right to show up in Court any failings on the part of tlio Inspector which he had detected. He asked the Inspector if he did not ouce say that small holdings (such as defendant's) were the curse of the country? The Court—Your holding is under 20,000 acres?

Mr Moore—Considerably under, youi Worship.

The Inspector denied that he had made the statement referred to.

Mr Moore said tho object of the present prosecution was to compel him to fence his hack line. Virtually the department said, "If you don't feuco, we will smash you.'" The Inspector—l said on one occasion that until the back line was fenced I could not give Mr Moore a clean certificate.

Mr Moore asked the Bench to take these words down. He also demanded to know whether the Court sat to carry out the instructions of the Department or was free to right his wrong ? He also declared that under the Herding clause he might he made liable for penalties running into thousands of pounds. The Court could not see in the Act the heavy penalties mentioned by Mr Moore.

Mr Moore declared that there was a tendency on the part of the department to stamp out the small men.

The Court pointed out that the Inspectors had not attempted to exercise all the powers they possessed under the Act, Mr Moore—No! But they keep them suspended over our heads by a horse hair,

The Court offered to adjourn the caso to enable Mr Moore to continue his address later in the day. Mr Moore was willing to accept an immediate decision.

The Court thought perhaps that it would be a greater relief to Mr Moore's mind to spoak at an indefinite length, hence the suggestion, Mr Bunny asked for the minimum fine to be inflicted. The fiouvt then inflicted a fine of £5 (for disobeying order for one day only) and costs. RE-HEAMNG, "W. Hercock applied for a re-hearmg of the case Berwick v. Meredith on the ground that he had fresh evidence to bring forward. Mr Bunny (for the applicant) and Mr Parker (for Mr Meredith) argued the matter, and his Worship decided to grant a second hearing on that day fortnight. RABBIT CASE, F. G. Moore v. Dorset—Breach of the Rabbit Act. No appearance of defendant. Fined 15 and costs. CIVII, CASES. His Worship remarked on the light list of civil cases -which again came before him, saving that it gave him pleasure to notice the improvement thus indicated, G. Dixon v J. Ofiapniiin.—Claim fnr £ls, dishonered promissory note. Mr Bunny for defendant. Defendant stated that he had signed the note on behalf of a friend, who had n»t paid the money as he promised he would.

His Worship explained that the defendant would have to pay the amount of the claim, and then recover from the person for whose benefit he had signed the bill. Judgment was therefore entered for amount and costs. John Tuck v Darville.—Claim for the value of a dog alleged to have been lent to defendant, but not returned, and for damage done to a gun. Defendant stated that Mr Tuck had brought the do» and gun to him to use in bis (plaintiffa) service killing rabbits, and he therefore c'id not consider b mself responsible for loss or injury to them.

Plaintiff denied this, and handed in two letters, one sent to the defendant and his reply thereto, as evidence of the fact that he had not agreed to simply either dog or nun to defendant, who was to kill the rabbits for their skins, and in consideration of receiving certain stores and rations.

'■■ Hib Worship held that the usual stamp duty would have to be paid on these letters hefnre they could be admitted as evidence. One of them bote a penny duty stamp. What it wna placed upon it 'or he did not know. It was quite worthless. Plaintiff paid the duty, and stated he lent the. dog and gun at the defendant's rennest. The. gun had been broken and 'r nd red useless through de l {endrn > . uegto clean it, Defemlaii t had statod : this;: toy plaintiff, arid also that it had' Mckec|an^

and severely injuring one of his fingers. He (plaintiff) hud therefore released defendant from his agreement. The dog was the beet lie had, and was known to be one of the best rabbit dogs in the district. He would be satisfied to get the , dog back instead of the money he claimed for him. Defendant bad offered to pay ■""\ for the gun,, and asked what he would charge_ for it, but on leaving asked him (plaintiff) if he was going to be so meaS as to ohargo him for it. V'

To defendant—l did not ask you to lake the dogs, and all you hav? said is false. \|j!J E. Crawford deposed he considered the dot; a very good one, and worth £5, Defendant stated that he had lost another dog of plaintiff s which had been found four month's after, and this might be the same. Mr Tuck did not clafge . him with stealing that. ■* ,

His Worship said there was no doubt as to defendant's liability for the dog, as he had used him at his work, and it was not lent to him under his contract, He would give judgment for plaintiff for the £5 claimed as its value, with the proviso: that if the dog were returned the money would not bsclaimed. "With regard to the gun, no evidence had been placed before him sb to its value. Mr Tuck stated he had had several of the same sort of (tuns, and had sold some to Mr Gardner, of Wellington, at 32s Gd. He had asked 30a for the gun from defendant. The defendant stated the gun was not fit to fire outef, and plaintiff supplied, him with blasting powder to shoot with. The gun wanted cleaning every five or six shots. He did not tell plaintiff that the gun burst because he (defendant)had neg-> looted to clean it, It was not likely he would say so if it was the case. The gun had kicked and knocked him down, rendering him insensible for a minute or two, the stock being broken and the hammer loat in the fall.

Plaintiff said overy word that defendant uttered was false. Defendant—You have said one or two things which are true, but the reßtof your statement! are quite false . -'Plaintiff gtated that the powder supplied was the same as all other people used for shooting rabbits. Defendant assorted hi neither asked for the gun or the dog. * Plaintiff—Your assertion is utterly false. You asked for the dog becaußo you knew he could kill more rabbits than all of yours put tojeiher. His Warship said the plaintiff had no power to sell the gun for 30s, as stated he / had •ffered, because he had not a license to sell. He would assess the damage done to the gun at 15s. The judgment being 15 let and costs, £sl<> he remitted if dog returned by Monday next at 12 noon. '' • . . W. J. Nathanv HekaHaratiera.—Judgment summons £2 4s 9d. Mr Beard for plaintiff. Ordered to pay in 14 days, or 14 days imprisonment., 0. J, Freeih < .l-ihn. MoPheraon.Claim 16s bailifl 1 , (m. Adjourned for one month.

One or two cases were settled out of Court.