R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 3, Issue 905, 21 October 1881, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON, THURSDAY, [Before H. S. Wahdel, Esq., E.M.I FOUL CHIMNEY. J. C. Ingram v John Hicks Corbett.— Allowing chimney to catch fire. Mv Skipper for defendant admitted the charge, but said the neglect lay with the sweep, The Court said that regarding the position of the house it must inflict a Gueof 20s, andcuats, 7s. PROFANE LANGUAGE. Servant McArdle v Zachariah Patterson.—Breach of Vagrant Act by using imifane language in a public street. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Robert Harvey deposed that after twelve o'clock at night on the Bth inßtant, lie heard the defendant, who was standing in his own doorway, use the words charged in the information. Sergeant McArdle said he heard the words used hy the defendant when within ten yards of him. When he requested hi in to ho quiet he replied that he was inside bis own premises and the Sergeant might so tn hel|.

The defendant pleaded excitement consequent on persons coming to his place drunk, and stealing and destroying his property. The Court said it was necessary to repress such conduct, and would impose a penalty of £4 and costs, or fourteen days hard labour. At the request of the defendant a fortnight was given to him to raise the money. Constable Fleming v H, Welch.—Breach of Licensing Act by being intoxicated when in charge of a saddle horse, The defendant admitted the charge,

The Court said the offence under the new Licensing Act was a serious une. It whs important to regard it as such, as a man in such a position endangered other people's safety as well as his own, A fine of 13 and costs was inflicted, in default fourteen days. pumous BIDING. Constable Fleming v Henry Archer and William Kcelile.—Furiuus riding through Mastei'iuii on the 2nd inst., about 1 a.m. Prosecutor deposed that it was moonlight, and that the defendants were galloping at a furious pace. Defendants admitted in his presence that they were the met). There were people about at the time,

The Court said such practices were exceedingly dangerous, though less sn on a moonlight, night. Archer would be fined 20s and 7s costs, and Keehle (a lad) 5* and 7s costs,

The s e defendants were charged with damages to a door—the property of Mosrs Neil and Cockery-lo the extent of £2. Planners plc.dwl guilty They slated that their horses were locked up, and as they could imt rouse the stableman they burst I lie door open. Defendants were ordered to pay 5s each as a penalty, and costs of case. CAIIU PLAYING. Constable Fleming v 0. F. Worth.— Breach of Licensing Act, section 149, by permitting card playing on the Ist day of October in his licensed premises. The defendant said he did not think card playing, as an amusement, was unlawful, mid seeing that the Act had not been in iorce 12 hours when the information was laid, and that hu had had no notice of the new Act; also that he had been in the trade for 12 years without a charge being preferred against him, the Cuuit should be favorable to him, Tho Gaming Act-not yet in operation—did not forbid playing cards for amusement. The Court did not think the conviction could be supported. Unlawful gaming was not defined till the Gaining Act came into force, The case would be dismissed. S.mie v T. Wagg.-A similar charge, which was withdrawn. PROSECTJTIXG AN INSPECTOR. J. C. Andrew v W, A. P. Sutton.— Breach of Sheep Act by issuing a warrant lo bed cer'jiin sheep, which warrant wilfully affirmed that the said warrant was issued on his own view, » Mr Bunny appeared for defendant, Mr Andrew conducted his own case,

The defendant pleaded nut guilty. The pn.secutor Imped the Court would agree with him llmt even if he did not olitiiiu iicinviciimi he would he upheld in showinu that the law was defective. The facts wore as follows:-On 14th April lust, an infected sheep was found on his run, and the Inspector informed by telejiratn of the fact. On the lGth the latter issued a hording order nut having seen the Hock. The word "view" was an old one in law, and was taken to mean a personal inspection. He called Mr Thomas Mackay to prove Mr Sutton was not on the station at the date specified. Mr Sutton's appointment only dated from the Ist of April. Mr Bonny submitted that there was no case, even if Mr Andrew proved all he alleged. No criminal offence wasdisclos«d and if Mr Andrew had been wronged ha hart his civil remedy. Mr Andrew held that Mr Sutton had marie himself liable under the Justice of Peace Act, by taking it declaration from himself. The law was an anomaly, If he laid a false information against the Tnspec'or he was liable to a penalty, but if the Inspector laid a false information against him, was he logo free! "jlr Bunny denied that the seclions in the Justice of the Peace Act referred in any way to the present case, and asked the Court to dismiss the information with costs. He said that Mr Andrew had none outside any reasmiahlo course, and hoped the Court would shew it, sense at this by granting full costs against him. "The Court: Do you admit, Mr Bonny, tint ihs order was issued without personal M6'v? Mr Rimny ; No !

Mr Andrew said Hie Crown had done liim the honor to appoint a solictor in the present case t'i act against him. Mr Bunny was the representative of the Sheep Department, not the personal adviser of Mr Sutton. Thmnas Mackay stated that ho lived in ihe homestead at lea, which commanded a view of the adjoining paddocks, where the infected sheep we-c between the Ist and lfith of April. He heard of nn one visiting the paddocks during that period. In answer to Mr Bunny : The extent of the run was about 18.000 acres. No one could have, a view of the whole of the land fmm any one point, Any person might hare come on to the run without beinsj seen. He might have lieen off the station for an hour or two between the Ist and 18th ins's. The C"iirt pointed out that the order applied to the whole flock, and not to the iufwted section of it. only. Mr Andrew said an obieetion of a techn ; cal character might hold water and the Inspector he enabled to get off, The Act. therefore, required amending. In answer to Mr Bunny, Mr Mackay stated that the Inspector might have gone over the run in his absence, and then have viewed the sheep near the homestead without him being aware of it.

In answer to his Worship, the plaintiff said he could have brought his shepherds, who could swear they had not seen Mr Sutton on the run at the date stated. He also pointed out that it was proved Mr Sutton was not there on the 14th, Sunday . was the 15th, and not a legal day under the Act, and the warrant was (kt«d at Mutation on the 16th, thai

proving that the Inspector was not at t station on that day. His Worship stated that even if' d fendant had given a false statement the was no penalty provided under the A< Of course if lie did cnything to the inju of sbcepowners by any action outside 1 duties they had their remedy in a ch action, but if the Inspector had reason apprehend that any damage would ,1 done by infected sheep straying throuf broken fences or otherwise to neighborii runs, he was justified in issuing herdii notices. His Worship was x'ber ii clined to take Mr Andrew's inM tyatiol of the term " view" as rrJs ;ng I personal view on tlia'part of the 111 spector, as it was necessary to exerciJ great discretion before placing anyperso to great loss and inconvenience by con polling them to herd their sheep. Thi Act, however, was very vague, nc actually stating what theglnspector ba ' to view. \y \- Plaintiff held that in signing the war rant defendant had made a false state ment, and was liable to a criminal chargi outside the Sheep Act. His Worship said that assuming tb defendant did not view the locality, i would not render him liable to an; penalty. Plaintiff held that if defendant made ai affirmation, equivalent to an oath, that H had viewed when he had not, it l wai making a false statement under the Jus tice of the Peace Act,

His Worship ruled against the plainti! and dismissed the caie.

Plaintiff asked that each party shoult pay his own costs, but His Worship sait it would not be fair to saddle any of thi costs on the defendant, and ruled plaintif should pay them.

After threatening to appeal against thi payment for defendant's Tinui oil a former occasion when the case wai tried, but not heard, the costs, amounting to 38i, were paid amid laughter, Mr! Andrew's forensio abilities being evidential muck admired by the audience. I

[A second cafe, Andrew v Sutton,] which was dismissed, will be fully rei ported in our next issue ] '