Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

R.M. COURT.

CARTERTON-SATURDAY. (Before H, S.Wabdeii, R.M„ and V/, ■ E, Beetham, IP.) E, Orbell y. D. McLachlan.—Breach Rabbit Nuisance Act 1882, Defendant .pleaded guilty, but pointed out to the Court what steps he had taken to destroy the rabbits, The Inspector said'he was not satisfied with what had •been-..done, but-he would only ask for a nominal penalty. Fined 20s and costs. . E. Orbell v Wirenm Muhupuku.— Same offence. Defendant said in defence that lie bad been doing all he 'could, and tried to get rabbiters but "had failed to do so. Ho was paying ;los a week and rations for men who also took the skins. The Court said defendant would have to pay higher wages, if he wanted efficient men, Fined 40s and costs. E. Orbell v Nopera Tiki.—Same offence, Defendant pleaded not guilty as he had been employing four Europeans, who were like the general run of them, They, had their breakfast iu tho morning and then skulked out into the bush, where they lay nown quietly .until dinner time, aud then came forth for their dinner with unfailing regularity, while at the same time they declared there wero no rabbits to be found, Fined 20s and costs. There were two small debt cases, one of which was settled out'of Court, and the other judgment was entered on confession. Samuel Oatesjunr. v Henry Rhodes. —Sureties of the peace, Informant Btated that pn 'that day defendant went ,to a house by him and broke in tho door with an axe, Defendant .said'he Had an equal right in the house as informant, vh'ich.iwaß denied, Defendant was ordered in recognizance—himself in £lO and two sureties in £lO each to keep the peace for three monthi ,

WILLIAMS V FREDERICK WILLIAM8 —RAPE Henry Williams, bullock-driver, Carterton, deposed that .Charlotte Williams was his child, and that she., was ten years of ago, He knew nothing about the alleged offence excepting what his wife had told him. Jessie Williams, wife of Henry Williams, deposed that,the girl Charlotte complained to her of having been assaulted by the blacksmith's boy, also to the fact that she, herself, had given her child three " hidings" on the day on which the assault took place, Charlotte Williams deposed as follows:—I know the accused, lie lives with i another boy at a whave near Spora's house. On Saturday last' I was playing with Bob Spora by the door of the whara of the accused, when he pulled mo inside and made Bob go away. He afterwards hurt me and gave me a shilling not to tell my mother. Medical evidence given by Dr Bey and Dr Spratt entirely disproved the allegation of rape, and the information was dismissed,

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WDT18840114.2.10

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 6, Issue 1582, 14 January 1884, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
447

R.M. COURT. Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 6, Issue 1582, 14 January 1884, Page 2

R.M. COURT. Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 6, Issue 1582, 14 January 1884, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert