R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 4, Issue 1226, 10 November 1882, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

CAETERTON—WEDNESDAY.

(Before H. S. Wardell, R.M., and B, Boys .. and W. Booth, J.P.fl)

0. A. Watson v J. Burrow.-Abusive language in the public street, This case arose out of the impounding of some horses, the property of the defendant. Mr Sandilands appeared for defendant, and said he understood it was the wish of the informant that the case should be withdrawn. The Resident Magistrate said ha should not allow this to be done. The evidence of the informant was then taken, and defendant was fined 20s and costs, , C. A, Watson v J. Burrow.—Rescuing cattle while being impounded from public road.—Withdrawn by consent. Robert Marsh was Charged with an assault upon his wife, Mary Marsh. Tho assault appeared to have been rather a severe one. Mr Sandilands for defendant said he understood the wife desired to withdraw the charge, His Worship remarked that the machinery of the law having been set in motion so far as to lead to the arrest of the defendant upon warrant, and tho case having been romanded two or thrc6 times 110 must know soniethiug of the circumstances before ho consented to tho withdrawal. Mrs Marsh informed the Court that she wished to withdraw the case because the struck her husband first, and upon being asked by the Court why she had laid the information, ' said because her husband had dared her to do it, and she wanted to let him see she would, They had been married sixteen years and defendant had never beaten her before. Withdrawn by cogent, C. Morgan vW. Cave Junr,-Debt £4 7s lOd. Judgment on confession, 6, Delhi' v Burrow,—Debt 17s 7d. Mr Gray for plaintiff Mr Sandilands for defence. Mr Sandilands pleaded that about 81bs of beef supplied by plaintiff was bad, and called a witness to prove this. The witness stated that after the meat had been delivered about a week, which was salt beef she cooked it and found it was rotton in the middle aud quite unfit for use. His Worship said ho must give judgment against defendant as it was not the right time to complain of the quality of the beef a week after it had been delivered, but this should have been done at the time of the delivery. Judgment for Plaintiff. E. Barnes v T. Watson.—Claim 17s Id. This was a claim for work done in whitewashing a building,' Defendant paid into Court 12s in full satisfaction of claim, which was refused by Plaintiff. Judgment for Plaintiff for lis Id. Plaintiff to pay costs Is. There were a number of oases in which the amount was paid into Court or the judgment entered 011 confession, while several were withdrawn.

MASTERTON—FEIDAY, j ; [Before H. S. Wardell, R,M,]; W. A. P. Sutton v. T. L. Thompson, breach of Eabbit Act, 1882. Mr Bunny for defendant. W. A, P. Sutton, Inspector, Bworn, deposed, I gave defendant notice under the Act to destroy his rabbits. I authorised Mr James Harvey to serve the notice on him, James Harvey called proved the service of tho notice on the 23rd of October. The Court: Did yon compare tho notice you served with tho copy produced in Court.

Witness: I read tho one I served by the copy. I inspected tho property of defendant on tho 23rd, tho rabbits were very numerous, A man with dogs and ferrets could get forty a day there. I did not see that any stops were being taken to destroy them. In my opinion no steps had been taken.

The Court; Under this Act it is rather startling. It is not necessary to prove that no steps have been taken. The onus of proof, I think, is thrown on the defendant, All that the Inspector has to do is to show that he believed the rabbits to be numerous, and to serve a notice. It is something like that wretched Sheep Act —I suppose I must npt say wretched hero—where the other day the sheep had been cleaned to the satisfaction of the Inspector; hafc the Inspector was not bound to disclose what would satisfy him. I am strongly of opinion that in such cases it should'be incumbent on the Inspector to stato what he requires to be doue, but not to leave a man in the dark.

Mr Sutton said the defendant had been negligent. He never tried to catch a man on the hop. J, Harvey: Ire visited tl)e property on the Brd of November and found the rabbits just as numerous as before. Mr Bunny asked the ruling of the Court an the interpretation of section 9. He submitted that the Inspector must under that section give notice of what ho required to be done before any penalty could be inflicted. The Court: How is the landholder to know what tha opinion of the Inspector is unless it is communicated to him. Till then he docs not known what to do.

Mr Suttou said if a landowner was ignorant of the proper steps to be taken he couM communicate with the Inspector. He could not go round to every man in the district and tell him how to destroy his rabbits. The Court: I see auoh a vast power put in the hands of the Inspector under this statute that it will be well to consider this point. Mr Sutton: If your Worship rules that I must give notice of what stops must be taken, I will simply request a man to wire net all round his property, and employ a dozen rabbit ers.

The Court: The point for mo to decide ia whether it is nocesiary for a defendant to show what he bus done before jt hasjbeen Intimated what he should do'. . ' | Mr Sutton: I might ruin a man if I exercised such'a power, The Court: Ido not ■ want to put such a responsibility on your shoulders, but I am afraid I rau st do so, Mr Sutton: If I have got that power I will havo to use it. The Court: Have you in any way intimated what steps you considered neceaBary to be taken. Mr Sutton: No, Your Worship, I did not think it necessary in the case of Mr Thompson. Some people think it to be outside my duty to express my opinion. The Court: I must hold that before a man can bo guilty of an offence he must know what constitutes the offence, Mr Sutton: The defendant is required, by the notice to destroy the rabbits on his land. The Court: I dismiss this information on the point raised by Mr Bunny that no intimation of opinion has been given by the Inspector to tho defendant. Mr Bunny stated that Mr Thompson had taken steps on receipt of Mr Sutton's notice to obtain rabbiters.' Mr Sutton intimated his intention to appeal. The Court: It is a very good and proper point on whicli to appeal. . Smith and Hogg jr P« C. Frazi.—Dishonored promisßoryWeiG.ll. Judgment for amount and costs. John, Edith, and Lucy Cockery, three chijdpe'n, wevo charged with maliciously iojtjhng a trep of a value exceeding Is. MriSkipper, for the'defence, urged the youth of the' oalprits, and said if Mr Bunny,had been a family man lie would never: have brought the charge. He pleaded guilty on behalf of his olients, and said there was certainly Bome damage done. The children had certainly attempted to out down a titoko tree in order to get at the berries.; 'J'hey had trespassed,, and brought themselves within the pale 'if the' law, but a caution would be sufficient. It was never intended thatohildren should be brought up for a.:childish ifiMJUlUliiiHiiiHi

there were who had not, as children, done 1 similar, if not worse, things, He doubted if the plaintiff could prove the tree wai worth Is, and if it m it could have been arranged with the parent. Mr Bunny should have gone to the father instead of to the Court. The offence only took place yesterday. Mr Bunny gave his reasons for laying the information. He had Buffered from / treßpasaerß who not only trespassed," but' destroyed the trees. He could prove that the tree destroyed was a valuable ornamental tree, and caused him considerable loss. He could have laid tho information in a much more severe form, but Y* wished it to be known > could not go upon property aniWstjdown valuable trees, arid then Biiyj as an , excuse, that they were only worth a" shilling. He laid the informution with .reluctance. He cottld,' no doubtj/bave arranged with the father,'but that'would not have the effect of deterring others,' He was willing to have the case with-* drawn, but he wished it known that a heavy penalty could he enforced, and three years' imprisonment inflicted. His Worship said he thought Mr Bunny had done the wisest thing he could in, bringing thu matter before the Court; not particularly for those children, but to let them and others know that they could not go on land and destroy trees, without being liable to a penalty of three years' solitary confinement. After once being committed for simply damaging a tree only worth Is, 6 months' imprisonment could be inflicted for seeond offence. If a man or child simply went into';' another's garden and destroyed a'goose'"" berry bußh, he was liable to six months' imprisonment, He would dismiss this case, but would like the accused to tell their friendß what they had themselves liable to,