RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 3, Issue 996, 10 February 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

: Masterton, Thursday. Before H.S. Wardell, Esq. ,H.M. Farmer v King. {Concluded,} Mr Bunny addressed the Court at length, submitting that there were very great discrepancies iu the evidence of Mr. and Mrs Horobin, and that there was no oaße whatever against defendant, and asked his Worship to dismiss the information.

The Court held that there was a caße, and for the defence

~ Sarah Fulcher deposed she resided at "Mauriceville.' She was at Mrs Farmer's on the evening of the assault. Mrs Farmer was in the house. Jennings' house was closer to the slip-rails than Farmer's, Saw King at Jennings' house Saw Farmer drag King into the slippanels by his waistcoat. Before this heard Farmer ask King to come into the road, Next heard a blow struck with a stick, but could not say who Btruck it. Mr Farmer then came out and told King that would do, when King said he would not strike Farmer, Mrs Farmer beokoned to Mr and Mrs Horobin to come up. Farmer dragged King to the fence and told Horobin that King had struck him in his own place, King did not strike Farmer. Mrs Horobin abused King and told Farmer to sue him. Saw King inside Farmer's fence. King had hold of Farmer when the Horobins came up. Horobin arrived after a Scandinavian on horseback, Mrs Farmer was in the paddock, Farmer was trying to get loose to fight King, but could not do so. Mrs Farmer said, "That will do, King." King replied, "I will not strike him." farmer said," By God, JL will," Mrs Hurobin called King a scoundrel and a villain. Farmer then went into his house. Did not hear King use strong language. Saw Farmer's face bleeding from a blow received by falling against a post. Farmer asked witness what she thought of it. Witness told him it was his own fault,

By Mr Gray: Saw blood, on Farmer's face when ho went into the house. Did not see it before. Was at Mrs Jennings house when she first saw King. First saw Farmer when pulling King into the paddock by his waistcoat. Did uot see either Farmer or King in the road, but could hear them talking. Did not go further than the door when she heard the blow struck. Could hear Farmer say distinctly, " Come into the road," Went to.the door directly after she heard the blow/struok, and saw Farmer dragging King through the slip-panels. Plaintiff had hold of King with one hand and.was taking down the slip-panels with the other., Saw King's waistonat give way, ■: King/did not attempt to defend himself. Wheif King's waistcoat gave way Farmer fell towards King and struck his face against a post. Mrs Farmer gave her baby to' witness when she went out, Mrs Farmer: heard' the conversation between her husband and King and went out. Farmer got up andwaß about to strike Kin? when the lntter seized his hands, Hear! King say distinctly that he would not Btrike Farmer, and Farmer say, '{By'God, I will." Jenning's house is between Horobin'sand Farmer's. Did not see King leave go of Farmer. Saw Farmer drag King to the fenco after he (Farmer) got up.. Farmer told witness he would have summoned King for trespass two days before if he could have got a horse to go to Maaterton. Did not take particular notice as to the cut on plaintiff's face. By Mr Bunny: Did not think King resisted Farmer.

By His Worship: Could, not. say who struck the blow at first or.who received it. Witness could swear distinctly,to everything she had stated. '■ ;•; . ; , Elizabeth Jennings was called by Mr Bunny to show that there was.in ani.mosity by Farmer townrds King. Mr Gray submitted that the evidence of this witness could not be received as it had no direct bearing on the case, His Worship also held this. view, and her evidence was not admitted..

H, King, defendant, deposed that he had fed his pigs when Parmer came along. Plaintiff said he was going to summons him for trespass. Defendant said he was. a spiteful old man. Farmer went on for about a chain and said a good hiding would do defendant good. ■ Defendant said he could not do it, Farmer said come up here; defendant did so, Farmer took a rail and struck defendant on the shoulder and arm. Plaintiff then turned to get the next rail, when defendant seized him to prevent him doing so. Plaintiff caught hold of defendant by the.waistcoat which gave way. Plaintiff stumbled when the waistcoat gave way, but recovered himself and went for defendant again.' Could not say whothor Farmer struck himself when he stumbled, ijr Farmer came from'the house straight to them, Did not know how plaintiff got the out on the face.' '" By Mr Gray: Had had a conversation with Mrs Fulcher'as jio evidence. Did not arrange with her m to what she was to say. Could' not Bay whether Farmer Btruok his head againßt a peak Believe plaintiff fell on his face.' . This closed the case for the defence.

Eia Worship, in summing up, aaid he could hardly realise from the contradictory evidence that he was trying one caae. The evidence of Mrs Horobin and Mrs Fuleher was directly opposite, and one of the parties had been, guilty of wilful perjury, Tho evidence of Farmer was not corroborated exoept by Horobin The other witnesses could not swear to a blow being struck. He thought the evidence of Mrs Fulcher commended itself, and that she was either truthful or a consummate perjqrer. From the fearfully coritvadicting character of the evidence ho wottid dismiss'the'ln'tomatibi},"'' '' RasbiiOw..

W. A, P. Sutton v MoKenzie.—Breach of Eabbit Aot. Mr, Bunny for plaintiff, Mr Gray for defendant. All the formal proofs except the aervice of the notice were admitted by the latter,''* ■■ JV, A,; P, gutton, Inspeotor, deposed that he instructed notices to be served on Mr 4loKenzie, : knowing his country was very ithick^with■•' rabbits.- He '• did -not know what was being done to destroy the rabbis prjpr, Jo the notice being served j but had reason tp believe tljat effloient steps being taken;;:; ■■''! >".' ! : . lo Mr Gray; Knew from''personal view Hhat; defendant 'wai not taking efficient steps, as the, rabbits were very numerous. Instructed Mr Smith' to serve the notice. The form was filled op and I signed it, Defendant's land is the worst

part of my district-—it is a warren. The country being limealono = formation, is peculiarly adapted (or the propagatien o£ rabbits. I have been on the property once within nine months. I don't know whether they were thiok or not on the day the notice was served from my own knowledge, I was through the run yesterday, It was in the middle of the day, when you would not see many rabbits, but at the far side of the run I Baw a large number. '.'•■'

Mr Bunny protested, against .jjiis crossexamination, as he did not intend to prove his case by. Mr. Suttoh.it aUi-only the instruction to serve the notice. <|s\ Mr Gray still proceeded wijh the l .£> examination: Did not know.who wcfeCg| MoKenzie's neighbors.; Did ',Jj|tffckl what steps Mr MoKenzie had receiving the notice. J■■ .:. Wallace Smith deposed: lie-was ..an authorised rabbfta'gsnfunder Mr Sutton, and had served a notice diiMr MoKenzie on the 28th November.; fudging from what he saw he should say thb rabbits were numerous, Went over'the. land .on the 9th January, " . .. Mr Gray objected evidenoe, as under the 17th section of the Act it had to be shown that Mr MoKenzie had failed to take efficient steps during the first 7 days. Mr Bunny held that he'could sue for any seveu days, and also; that the onus of proof lay with defendant to show that he had taken efficient steps;.v."; Mr Gray held that it should ; be shown by plaintiff that steps had not been taken within the first seven days, otherwise the proof of the service of notice was the' only thing necessary for the Inspector to adduce. This could not have been contemplated by the Legislature. His Worship ruled that the proof of notice and proof of existence of rabbits was all that was necessary for plaintiff to show. The defendant must show cither that he had no rabbits or had taken efficient steps to destroy those he had. Smith to Gray: The form was.signed before I filled it up, it was a blank form signed, Mr Sutton instructed me to fill it up, Mr Sutton was not present when I filled it up. Did not know what steps Mr McKenzie took between .the 28th of November and the sth December. Did not know the condition of the rabbits between those dates. Mr Gray: Then the ..defendant might have been employing 100 men each day for seven weeks, and at the end of that period have been inundated with a fresh swarm of rabbits) He still would have taken efficient steps. \ Mr Bunny held that defendant would still be liable to a penalty, as the Act says "for each seven days," and the penalty might be for the second, or third seven days. /;,

Hia Worship did not'take the fame view of the Act. If a man took efficient steps for say seven months, and then neglected for seven days, did Mr Bunny hold that he would be still liable to a penalty under the ordinal information ? "* Mr Bunny: Yea. I would like your Worship's ruling upon that.point. . Hia Worshipßaidin order to give the opportunity for appeal and - thus to settle the matter he would rule—" That compliance with the terms of the notioe during the firstjseven days relieved the defendant of the penalty," He thought .the not vory valuable, however, .as in experience very few had ever found itvH possible to take eicient steps in the seven days,

Jaa. Harvey called, said he was agont for Mr Sutton, and visited Mr MoKenae's property on Deoember 12, The extent of Mr MoKenzie's land ia about 5000 acres, Babbits were very numerous there. Did not notice that anything was being done. Mr McKenzia had one man who went out rabbiting twioe a week, and did fencing the rest of the week. Mr MoKenzie told him that his son-in-law's children went out hunting. ?Yisited the property on the 20th also. '. Mr Gray submitted that this evidence could not be received as being outside the seven days mentioned in the notioe, Mr Bunny olaimed he could bring evidence to show continuous neglect. ' Hia Worship ruled that it was competent for Mr Bunny to elicit'evidence of neglect within the first soven days, and also of continuous neglect after that period, If defendant could then show that efficient steps had been taken within the first seven days he would out the /• ground from under plaintiffs feet w} no, '"r penalty could be inflicted, J. Harvey, continued : The feed was very scarce in some spots, and the rabbit droppings literally covered the ground in some places, Visited the. ground on the 24th December and the state of rabbits was the same. Visited it again on 30th December, and Mr l{oK_enzie told him he had done nothing since his last visit. Efficient steps would have been to have employed three men with dogs and spades to destroy the mhblts'ahd do nothingelse. V •' /'■■■■' To Mr Gray: The rabbit-man was fencing when Meat over the land on Ist December. Could'nt say positively what steps were being taken at that time, Phoßphoriaed grain would rot ignite the grass in summer time, phosphorous alone might. There was no danger if the grass were cut off with a spade and the grain laid on the bare ground, Never saw Mr James' children out hunting rabbits. Dogs could hunt morning and evening all the year round..,/ Frpm Ist to 20th January, he had'never seen that any steps had been taken to destroy the • rabbits. " ' '•■•'' : "' Donald MoKenzie, sworn deposed, he was a son of Mr J. MoKenzie the defendant. On one portion of the land tb'er'e was one man killing, and had'been killing for about 18 months. Mr James 1 children-went out killing with doga, ono child was about 10 and' the fitter 14, they wore killing at the time the n'bjiiqe was ',-" served and' continued till last" month, when Mr James Wok their places. Kept two paoke of dogs, about 14 in eaobpaok,. He killed about 40 a day huns'eh;, Did no poisoning since Mr Smith's visit, as it did not act in warm weather.- Mr James, had used bi-snlphate qf oapb,Qn .sinne m - Smith's visit, They bad erected pa) ohains of rabbit proof fencing in. the past 4 months.' Native land adjoined literaljy orawled with iabbits*, flail put up a fence aoross the run so as to get the sheep off part of the ground ' It ' was being poisoned In the oqming winter.' Had taken efficient; steps, ju ji •••'. the number killed, ; To Mr Bunny,: the.rabbiterij nptrnre- , sent. I waanot with the rabbiter'alWays, hut saw him nearly every day. -ft. could ' ' trust him when put of my sight, He had about 700 aores to bunt over, Mr James and the ohildren. Irad: about 1000 acres. The children were aotive rabbiters and "ooljld ktyiiibrj} than a man. James has used a large quantity of 1 bl ; suTp)}ideoi oirbou. The rabbits} were .pretty, all that neighborhood; WnoM'numer- M ous as they were., Waß hunting when Mr' Haryey' visitedMh'efprWerk v" Knew-bow-roany rabbits-tjjb -man Killed as he took over the skin's. He had ship* :ped.lately 182 doaeu, a'tid the man had sheds full now not all dry.--• -- -- Henry Janies", aon-ih-lawWdefeßiint '• c9^obbra&tltobjt- , ;bl'pj:ewnß witnetfj's ' «Fi^>?oe;. ; fl 9; g S t;fr6 w^ttR ,2Qirabbitsa- - ' ' day'.fOqni' ; •Bidersd they bad tak'ke'ffiWnt »tepin>M .To Mr Bunnj'J.iHaf notjdestroyM the rabbits, the onildrin-were iioVaf good • aaa man at it. ,' 3e;had beMoukjfeaW overy'dayhruitinjf. %:'"■■■' ■'" ■

Mr Gray then said bo would if not too :: late objecftld the ififc-'Mnttoir :•••. •' v.Hva .Vires", as it set forth that on tliu iluy it was laid, defendant bad refused or neglected to take clticiont stops, wbile the ■-Beetion of the Act states "if after seven days defendant refuses," &<s, ■ His Worship rnlod that the information - could not be laid in any other form and that it was good; ..-,■: This was the case, and his Worship said he would give judgment after the adjournment of the district ronrUn Friday. [His. Worship gave judgment to-day against defendant, 6ning him i'ols and costs 335, for not having taken efficient Btepa within 1 days. Notice of appeal j^v^wasgi'ten.] ' Debt Cases. Masterton Borough Council v E. Kelly. -Betes, llMOs lOd. Judgment inv amount mid costsV W. J. Nathan v'Keere Maaka.—Debt, £8 9s 3d. Judgment for amount and costs. . W. J. Nathan v Amos Moore.—Judgment Summons, 112. ■" Ordered to pay II per month, or in default 21 days' imprisonment. 1 Same v Hana Arama and' Himiona Harakia.-Debt £8 Bs. Judgment for amount and costs. C. F. "Worth v Richard Hatch.-Debt £l6s. Judgment for amount and costs. MCaselboi'gvT. Sallofski.-Pebt M lis 6d. Judgment lor amount niid costs. Pouch v Burke, j (Concluded.) S. P. Beard, called, deposed be was a medical man, residing at Masierton. At the request, of the policoon the 7'h inst. he made an examination of tho little girl mimed' Mary Rnyner. He found no mark or recent bruises upon her. A portion of bor underclothing was torn. She had not been violated. [The Court then adjourned till 7.30.] ... On resuming, the child, Mary Rayner, was recalled: She said Herbert Vile was goiug home when she camo out of the paddock. She camo out first, the man stopping in the gully. Some children came home with herns far as the Hospital. . She went on alone, and saw the accused sitting down by Mr Moore's gate. Thny . both got over tho fence. Caleb Ewington, recalled, said: The girl was with Herbert Vile when I got up to them near Mr Monro's gale; I went into Mr Moore's, and as I was going Herbert called out '• Mary Rayner has got sixpence." When I came back Herbert said she hud two sixpences. He did not say what she got them for. I then went after my cows, and they went home. The accused called his Worship's attention to the difference between the boy's evidence then and that he gave in tho morning, and asked how a lad who had • said he did not know what God was could be believed i His Worship interrogated the boy further, and he said that what he stated in the morning wiib tho moro correct. V The accused said:—As the boy's evidence was so contradictory it wasnagnod, and that only the bare evidence of the child herself was against him. Constable Fleming, called, proved the •arrest of accused from a description and on information received. When arrested the accused asked what it was for, and when told said, " I never dreamed to do ,the like before. However, I'll have to up with the result." When taken to the station he said, "What right had they to arrest me, perhaps they had and perhaps they' had not, but by , I'll make them pay for it." Defendant was under the influence of drink at the time, The accused: I was drunk all that day, and knew nothing of what was going on till the doctor was examining me. _ His Worship informed him that he considered a prima facie case had been made out against him either to commit him for trial or deal with him summarily, unless he could bring forward evidence in defence. Prisoner: I can bring no evidence .". whatever, I was drunk at the time. His \Vorship administered the usual . . caution to accuseri, and then risked him if - he ; wished to* say anything in his defence \ Prisoner merely repeated he was drunk, and that he thought the barman at the Club could tell where he was all that day. . A subpoena was issued for Mr Nelson, the barman referred to, but he was not to be found, and the case was adjourned to • 9 o'clock this morning to secure hisevi- ■ V pence. The court adjourned at midnight TO-DAY. [Before H. S. Wakdell, R.M, and A BISH, J,P, Fleming v Burke. This case was resumed at 11 a.m. this morning. The register of the Masterton School was produced showing that Mary Bayner wa» in attendance on the afternoon of the seventh inst, Frederick Nelson Bhnkman, barman at the Club Hotel, was then called for the -defence. Eo saw the accused at the Hotel on Tuesday. He was there in the morning up till twelve' o'clock. Witness then went to dinner, and on Mb return the accusedwas not there, and he did not bob him again till a quarter past seven in the evening. The accused was not there to his knowledge between a quarter past one and half-past six, The accused had the appearance of having a glass or two in the morning but did not appear the jyorßß fpr liquor in the evening.... The Court: Wo shall commit you for trial John Burke. You are charged with an offence which will be dealt with by a jury.'' ' Prisoner: lam very glad, at no jury will convict me after the doctor's evidence. _ The Court: The charge will be'one of jpdecent assault, Tho Prisoner: I thought it was one of an attempt to violate. ' - ,Tbe Court: The Crown prosecutor will difine the charge,