R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 5, Issue 1322, 8 March 1883, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

OABTEKTON—WEDNESDAY,

Before H, S. Waroeli, Esq., R.M,

Harriet Vickerstaff charged William Vickerataff with having on February 16 used abusive language towards her in a public place, Mr Sandilands appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Gray for the defence.

Complainant stated on oath ihat'on the day named defendant went to where she was at a neighbor's house and sent into the house for her, On going outside lie asked her if she had sent n valentine to Ilia wife. She said she had, as his wife had Bent it to her daughter. , Defendant commenced to; swear in aloud ton's-of voice and used the words complained of. Hamilton Wylie was called to prove the use of the language complainod of The usual solemnity of the court was much disturbed by the Valentino which had caused the outburst'of- wi'ulh beine produced.

Defendant was fined la, costs 9s, informant's expenses 21s, witness Bs. H. Monce v W. Crawford.-Assault, Mr Gray, who appeared, for defendant, said an arrangement ha'd'been come to between the parties, upon whicii they wished to withdraw the information; The case was allowed to bo withdrawn, Taratahi Dairy Company v Pike and Sheerin,— Claim £6 ss,' Judgment for plaintiff with costs ' Same v E. H. Elliotte.-01aim £6 ss. Judgment for plaintiff with oosts 325. Same v P.Tancred.-Olaim £Blos Id, Judgment for plaintiff with costs 39a. i Twelve or thirteen cases.were down, on the list, but were either settled out of Court or paid into Court. MASTERTON-TTHURSDXY. ■ WI DRIVING, Ingram vJJohn Elley. —Driving round n oorner at a faster pace thin a walk, Defendant pleaded not guilty. Informant deposed that on the 28th of February at noon he saw the defendant drive round the Post Office corner at a very quick trot. He considered the pace a dangerous one, (To defendant). Mr R. Brown wai with me at the time.' I laid the informa- 1 tion on my. own responsibility. The Court said the defendant was fined in June last five shillings for the . same offence, and on this" ocoasion he would have to pay ten. ;

THE 'BtJSOASE, W. Neil v, William Hamilton.; Defendant charged on the 13th February. with not allowing a vehicle driveu by R. Jacques sufficient roadway, - and thereby obstructing traffic, Mr Beardr who appeared for defendant, pleaded not guilty. R. Jacques deposed that on the evening of Fob. 13 he wan driving a 'bus from the station to the Post Office. He came up to the 'bus driven by the defendant and askod for room to pass, As he would not gi»e way he attempted to pass on the wrong side. Defendant pulled across and prevented him from proceeding, He then tried to pass on the right side of the road and the defendant again pulled across and prevented him. He had mails and paßßengers on board, i ' To defendant—The road is a chain wide. . ' Defendant—You never could pass me; your horses couldn't doit I Your Wor-' B hip, I never heard him sing out at 'all I _ A, Bish* 'sworn, deposed—l was an- out-' side passenger by the 'bus on tlie occaaion referred, Mr Jacques tried "to' pass several times, but defendant prevented him. Jacques called out to him repeatedly. He could not have pasaed him . without endangering- the passengers. Xadvised. Jacqueshot to try again. \ 1 ' To defendant—Jacques was not gallop-' ing; your horses were. I am prepared to swear that the near horse was going at a hand canter. 1 Defendant—l am < prepared to-'swear that that horse never went out of a trot in his life. i; i A, Bish-It Was a fonny trot on this occasion 1. Herbert, Hall; a boy, was on Neil's *bus

,on the occasion referred to. Defendant's 'bus was 'going slowly till Neil's 'bus caught up with it, when defendant started his horaea and prevented. Jacques from i psßsinghim;; 'Defendant nearly ran into i Jacques' 'bus. I £ ; Henry Bennett]; another boy, gave very .clearly corroborative evidence. never caught si'nfie he had been ori|ha road, first came upjto • him [on side he drove falter— enough for Jacques to travel.

M; Anderson called for the defence said he waa conductor of Hamihon'sjus ,on the ocaaion." * Jacqiiea bua came pretty close up to them and tried to pass on the wrong side of the road, Hamilton drew Ilia horses' ».o that side. After a bit he tried to pass on the right side of the road, and there was room for him to pass if his horses had been able to go fast enough. Hamilton never left the. raetal when he Iried to pass on the right Bide. ; i To Mr Beard—Jacques only called out .once to my knowledge When Jacques called out Hamilton did not idove. I don't think the; piebald horsV was - cantering that night. . . ! ;

[ Defendant asked for an aJjournmont to produce another witness,' Mr Gorbett, but the Court refused the application, The Court said the case seemed very clearly established. against the defendant, After drawing to his proper side of the <oad the defendant should have remained qu it. He would inflict a fine of 40a and costs with plaintiff's expenses, It was highly important- to the publio that drivers should be taught to observe the rules of the road. ■ ' i. •• BABBITS. . ■ Sutton v j. V, Smith,—Breach of ; Rabbit Act, Mr Beard for the ( defendant pleaded not guilty, : .James Harvey deposed 'that: as agent for Inspector he aervod a notice" on Mr J, y. ; Smith on Novomber-the 6th.' Mr Beard—Have you a' cupy of the notice? ' ' . ..• ■ Witness—No The Court—Where did you obtain the notice! Witness-Prom Mr Sutton 1 ; W, A, P, Sutton, Inspector, deposed that under Section 8 of the Rabbit Act he caused, the notice to be served on Mr Smith, deeming .that there were rabbits on his land. ■ 'He gaye the notice to agent Harvey for service. He produced a true copy of the notice.

Mr .Beard—Did you compare it with the notice?

Witness-I believe I did I Mr Beard—Will you swear that you did? Witness—l will I "Ml Beard—Do you remember comparing it?

Witiißs—l read all of tliem. 1 read the original and.Mr Moore the copy. Sometimes I read the original and sometimes the copy. I won't swear which one I read in this instance. Mr Moore is a rabbit agent. '

The Court—Do you know anything of the steps taken by defendant after the service of the notice I

Witness—Not personally 1 H, Yallnnco stated that he was a duly authorised rabbit aijent. On November 20th ha examined Mr Smith's property and found rabbits very numerout upon ii. On Deo 18th he vifcitod the property. and found the rabbits still very numerous. He saw no one destroying rabbits on either occasion. In February he found that the rabbils had still further increased on this property. To Mr Beard—Gould not say whether after harvest rabbits became more numeious,

Mr Beard submitted that the case must be dismissed aB Mr Moore was not present to prove the comparison of the notice. The court held that the proof, -of the copy was sufficient.

J. V. Smithforthedefencestatedthat he had not received the notice corresponding with the copy, There was abme miatake. He did not receive a notice from Mr Harvey in November, nor had he received any notice under the new Aot. To Mr Sutton—Mr Harvey has been several tirms to my house but I have no recollection of his serving a notice. I ■swear tint he did not serve a notice on me. :

To Mr Beard—This is tho first occasion in which I have seen a paper notice, the previous ones which oame to me wore on parchment, James Harvey recalled by the Court— I note my work in a diary which I usually enler up every evening. Tho. entry produced is copied from a rough note. book which I carry with me. I .am positive i hat I handed the uotice to him. I could not swear whether tho notice was open or folded. I cannot say whether Mr Smith looked at.the notice. When I was leaving Mr Smith said he would attend to it. Mr Beard asked that Mr Smith should go back into tho box with reference to i he last statement of the witness.

Mr Beard—Have you previously cerved Mr Smith with any notice. Witness—l don't recollect doing bo. J. V. Smith recalled, stated that he had '"i previous occasions been served by Mr Harvey, and probably tho conversation to which lie referred .tOok ; place Oil one of them, Itdid.not take place in November. .

The Court asked Mr Sutton if he desired to press the case in face of conflicting evidence. : Mr Sutton said he credited the statement of his agent. H 6 could not gee how his agent could have made such a blunder. He would leave tho Bench to value Harvey's evidence.

The Court said it was placed in a painful position in having to decide such distinctly conflicting evidence on a matter iiffact. The service of the notice must be established before any offence could be proved. Without suggesting that the evidenco of the agent waß unreliable, it felt that tliare waa auoh a doubt left in its mind that it must give the defendant the benefit of it. It did not believe that there had been any wilful mistatement on either side, but simply a lapse of memory, Sutton v H. Welch—Breach of Kubbifc Act. ■

Defendant said "he had done all in his power to destroy his rabbits, He admitted service of notice. He had always one hand at work destroying rabbits, and sometimes more. He had killed all he 'could. To Mr Sutton—Since receipt of the notice he had kept a person constantly rabbiting, ; i: The court—Are you satisfied,Mr Sutton, with the steps taken! — : MrSutton-No. My complaint is that he does not keep constantly destroyino the rabbits, Hib country required steady work. ' j , Peterkin,Mr Welch's rabbiter,described the steps taken on the property, and asserted that the rabbits were almost exterminated there, i . Mr Sulton—Are you engaged by Mr 'Welch J j WilneßS—l ;am engaged to kill the rabbits, or to aeiid my man, at five shillings a day,l taking the skins!'"Sometimes two of us go ori one day and stop at home the next. . i Mr.;'Sutton jsaid the witness was a contractor who worked other people's rabbits. • : " v ! ' Witness—l shall have you up for false swearing, 1 I never took a contract in my life—(a laugh),! "The witness.left the box challenging! the; Inspector to shoot rabbits- against 1 him. r . ■ : James WelohJ son of -the defendant \ .. ■ •! ■

. proved that the rabbits had been regularly hunted by the last witness, and by hu brothers; To, Mr Sutton ; The first da/ you visited the property my brothers were out shooting. _H. Vallance deposed that he visited Mr Weloh'a property on December the 18th, He Saw, no one working there, the rabbits were very numerous. They were also numerous on the 19th February when he again visited the property. , To Mr Welch': 'My last visit was made in the evening. -.'A''nian might be ferret* ing with net's add Tinight not see him. i The Court said the Inspector wayole judge as to efficient steps,' and' jt muit therefore lpflict. a penalty ; of twenty shillings and'costß. ;

in destroying rabbits on hia than some men did on fifty and sixty thousand acres. ' Sutton v Charles Campbell,—Breach of Babbit. Act, Defendant .pleaded! -not guilty. ; t

Defendant said he had only fifty acres of land, and could not aSordito keep a rahbitter.' :He ; had' commenced tofclose fence in the property; arid till this was done they could.uot be killed, lis, wife was a good rabbitter, aoiT went out daily : with the dogs, He was paying Mr Disher' now to poison the land.

Mr Sutton pointed out; that. the atispinow being ..taken ought to have been taken earlier, He did not preaafor a heavy penalty, : - . , ; ..wfl'i*:; "X His Worship infiioted the nominal ~ penalty of 20s and costs. He stated that''' he had no alternative ;on the Inspector's •* statement that defendant had not done at first what should, in his opinion; have been done. ■ ' - Ewington vJ.Delwood Withdrawn, as' defendaht bad. filed hiß'V schedule; ; : .V: :• >Sj"i ;"f H, La Roohe v W, B. Rountree-r-Dfibt £1719s lid for work done. Judgraent for amount audoosts JS3.l9j, Darley & Knight, v D. lorster.—No appearance of parties., A. Biih v Geo. Bentley—Debt 12s 6d. Judgment for amount a«d costs : R. Wilsone.v John Morrison, Masterioii 'Highway ,Board, £5 10i> Judgment for amount and costs ,11s*, : A. R, Bunny v Raymond Marshall.— • . Debt £1 Is. Plaintiff slated, had sent £1 since the issue'bf'the spiu- r; ? rnons, but declined to pay onsts. Judgment was given for Is and 8s costs. J. Wellington v Erickaon.—Debt £4l3s Claim rent for one year and eight months' . at Is 8d per week. This was rather a "mixed" case. Plaintiff had let a cottage : i at Mauriceville to defendant, and said he :; would take £i 10s a year as rent. ; In;. September last however, he gaye : defend* •.•..*•5 ant a 'week's notice to quit. Defendant • declined at first to do so, and when ha vi did leave demanded an account before he : 1 ' would pay any rent. Plaintiff in bis e»I- • ; • 1 dence said his. bill of particulars also included horse food, meat, &o. . ' Mr Bunny appeared for defendant,' who said he had since left the home, and had also on two occasions in the prosenoe of ~ witnesses offered plaintiff £5 to settle the account! : His Worship said that as the house wai ■ Ist by the year the week's notice m not : ; admirable, and on the technical point raised by Mr Bunny that the case was | not properly brought, nonsuited tin'.'.' i plaintiff with costs of G»uU2oi, counsels . „ fee i?l Is, and defendants expenses 101,