R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 6, Issue 1666, 22 April 1884, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

, M MASTERTON—MONDAY,.' Before H. S, Wardell, Esq. liM. (Continued from ow last.) D. Donald v J. H. Corbett.—Breach of Volunteer Regulations by absenting himselt from parades in May, June, and September, the charge being laid under section 42 of the. Act., Mr Beard appeared for the informant, and Mr Skipper for the defendant. _ Mr Skipper stated that his client was absent on two Occasions, but had leave on the third. sHe contended (1) that due notice of proceedings required by the regulations had not been given; (2) that the time had expired during which they could be initiated; (3) that the action should have been brought under section 265 instead of section 42; and (i) that no copy of tho regulations as required b/ the Act had been supplied to his client.

Mr Beard addressed the Court at length on the legal points raised, by Mr ■ Skipper 1 He ■. contended ■ that section 42 gave a limit of twelvemonths in which to initiate proceedings, and that it was not necessary to supply copies of rules to volunteers, v Fines could be imposed first under the statute, second under the regulations, and third under the rules. ,The Court held that it'was notessential for a copy of the regulations to be served on a member of the corps, and that the procedure was not limited to three months -as contended by Mr Skipper. Mr Skipper held..that the fiueincurred was under the rules, and therefore could not be brought under the regulutions.

The Court decided that the procedure was; a penalty .under the . regulations': pot a fine under the rules.> At this stage,.in tlie : -absence of Mr Donaldj ifc was proposed that the case should be adjourned. Mr Corbett stated that it would be inconvenient for him to attend again as he was about to reside at Pahiatua. The Court ruled that the charges for absences wero barred'by time and gave judgment for defendant, Bishop v. Miller.—fiebt il 15s. Judgment for amount and cost.

MASTERTON-THISJAY. Bofore Mr W. Lowes, JJP, .Robert Slattery was charged bySergeant McArdle with the larceny of a bottle of whiskey -from 'the Club Hotel on the previous evening, Arthur Stedman, barman of the Hotel, deposed -that abopt half-pnst six on the evening in., question •Slattery came 'into tho bar . and" aaltetl for a bottle of . whiskey,,, Witness was handing liirn one when the accused snatched it out of his hands. Witness demanded payment for it, when the accused said he would neither pay for it or give it back. He threatened to strike, witness, who had to retreat to avoid --.th# blow. The accused then left the bar and witness in the absence of Mr Elkins, called the police.. Sergeant McArdle went with him down the street and tnet,Slattery opposite the Bank ot New Zealand/arid found the bottle of whiskey on him.. -The whiskey was Dunvilles', and- the bottle produced in Court was tho one He considered the accused was' at the time far from being sober. He did not notice at first that he was so far gone, or he would, not have supplied him. :" ~ The accused in defenceisaid ■:' ■ Well, 'I hato nothing to say only that I was drunk, and I ivm very sorry for what I .have done." '

• Sergeant McArdle said he did not' desire to press the charge. The Court said "that the accused might be very thankful that the circumstances of the case—accidental though they might be—aliowedit to put a favorable construction on his action. It was mainly that the accused asked for the' whiskey that saved him from a very heavy penalty, The Court trusted that his present .narrow escape would be a warning to him. The accused was then discharged. ;!