R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 3, Issue 978, 19 January 1882, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

OARTERTON WEDNESDAY, Before H. S. Wardbll, Esq., R.M. John Wonrot v G. Olsen.—Assault, Dismissed. Constable Bennetts v John Udy.— Allowing 70 sheep to be at large on the public road Defendant pleaded that the sheep lmd escaped when being driven home along the road, The information was dismissed. Snttor v J, Burrow, 0. Dakin, R, Brown, and J. Oatas.—Breach of Rabbit Nuisance Act, 1881. Mr Bunny (fop informant) said ho wished to withdraw these cases, as lie could not proceed after the decision of the Court in a similar oase at Grovtown. Withdrawn. Constable Bennetts v John Niools,— Cruelty to animals. The Court;considered this a bad cane, as the defendant had used great violence to the horse, beating it about the head with a stirrup-iron. Fined £5, or 14 days' imprisonment with hard labor. Same v same.—Drunk while in charge of a horse. Fined £2, or 14 days' hard labor. The fines were paid. V j-MASTERTQN-THURSDAY. ■ THE j>OtTND OASES. Ewington v E, Bezar,—Defendant was charged that on the j9th day Of October he did omit or negleot: to keep a.poundbooloand 'enter therein a cow impounded, the property of J. Etrington, Mr Bnnny appeardd for the informant. . The defendant pleaded not guilty, He .was not aware that any single cow was impounded on the 9th October. .. Mrs Ewington deposed that on the 9tn October last they found six of their cattle ; in the pound and two more more on the < 10 th, jShe went to Mr Bezar and'asked him who impounded them. He said he could not toll, but afterwards said a boy named Pugsley, Witness aaked him to : see the pound-book, and'he replied that < he would give her an extract, Witness 1 claimed (to tee the book itielf and the I

defendant said he should charge her a I shilling for doing so which she agreed to pay. He showed witness the book, but lt wAa not entered up, Witness teudered • the shilling but the defendant refused to 1 take it, Witness'cows were so repeatedly impounded that it was necessary to traoe how they came out.of the paddock. In answer to the defendant i I came to the pound on the' 10th, 1 cannot say what day of the week it was. I cannot say whether the cows were taken out on the 9th or 10th. I am sure the conversation was on the 10th, and the cows were taken out the day before. The two cows were taken out on the 10th or 11th, and I came to your house on the 10th or the 11th. The bock produced; is the one I saw. Defendant said at tire time that he had not then entered the six head of cattle. The Court:" There appears an entry on the 10th for 6 cows poundage 12s, and rangers trespass 6s. Was that entry there at the time you saw the book 1" Witness: No it waßjnoti : The Court: Your oase, Mr Bunnyi is' that on the 10th, the .tattle impounded on the 9th were not entered, The defendant, in reply to the charge, said.that he made thesilry,M soon as he conveniently could.- iiMrs E.wington did not put any. straightforward question : to him or he would-fiave answered 2 it. He impounded the cattle himself off unfenced land near Ohuroli-sti;eet. ; He made every entry' in the' book within' a reasonable time. _ .The Oburt; Considered that a technical breach of the t Act had been committed. It was, in its opinion; necessary for entries to bs made forthwith, The penalty for which the defendant was . liable was any amount up to £lO, but, in its opinion,.a penalty of one shilling and costs would meet the case, Mr Bunny pointed out that the ranger's trespass fee was an illegal fee, THE SECOND INFORMATION. The same defendant was then charged with employing a man named Manktelow to impound cattle. John Manktelow deposed that he was in the employ of Mr Bezar in December last. He went ranging for him for some two or three weeks, pounding all the cattle he caught knocking about the streets and on unfenced land. Witness pounded a red and white cow belonging to Mr Ewington off Mr Rapp's property. Witness was paid by Mr Bezar one shilling per head for all the oattle he impounded. In answer to defendant: Yon instructed me, when there was a case about which there was any doubt, to consult you. The defendant, in answer to the charge, handed in his appointment as Borough poundkeeper and ranger, The Court: Ido not understand where the title of your office as" ranger" came from. The defenbant said that he was instructed verbally in his duties as ranger by the Town Clerk. . The Court pointed out that by the Act a poundkeeper could not impound or em--1 ploy anyone else to impound. The defendant said lie depended upon the Council, who were no doubt instructed by their solicitor, He was willing to ; put the Town Clerk in the box to show i what his instructions were. The Court held that the Borough Council could appoint a man to impound cattle, and another to keep the pound, but it could not appoint one man to hold two inconsistent offices. The Act made , it ap offence for poundkeeper to act as jiflpounderi ' 1 *' ' R. 'Brown, Town Clerk, deposed; That the deifendant had been appointed ; to impound cattle as Ranger, and to receive them into the pound as Pound--1 keeper. The defendant received the i whole of the fees and paid a rent to the , Counoil. The Court: Oh he farmed the thing ? L Witness: Yes—Under the Borough ; by-laws there was a trespass fee which . was payable to the Ranger, The object of the Council was to prevent damage to • the footpaths, Witness did not think [ that the defendant had authority to , employ others to act in his place, and when his attention was called to the practice he discontinued it, It was under-stood-he oould employ assistance. The Court thought that' swell officers as Rangers should' be paid by salaries instead of fees. In its opinion a breach : of the section had. been committed. It was willing to give Bezar credit for sup- ' posing that the power of the Borough Council over-rode the Statutes of the Colony. It would not inflict a heavy penalty, but would fine the defendant 40s and costs. If another ease were brought up it would inflict the full penalty. The defendant said the practice of impounding 1 had been abandoned by him for a month. ' " Mr Bunny asked for full expenses in i such oase. The Court thought that the first case was a trivial one, in which the counsel's fee need not be granted, In the second ; case 30s would be allowed for the counsel's fee and coats 1 Mr Bunny held that the first oase involved a public question of importance, and thgt thp complainant should not be called upon to pay its expenses, The Court granted the informant's expenses in the first case, though it wished it to be understood that in criminal cases a counsels fee did not follow the decision of the Court, A. Bish v Jens A, Hansen.—Debt LlO 2s. Judgment for amount and costs, A, Bish v F. W. Ruok.—Judgment summons Ll6lßs. Order made. Masterton Borough Counoil v E, Kibblewhite.T-Rates LI 2s 9d, Mr Skipper for defendant, Judgment for amount and oorts. 0; J. Freeth v J. Maepherson —Debt 16s, Judgment for defendant with oosts L2 9s, '