R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 6, Issue 1678, 6 May 1884, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTO'N-MONDAY.

(Before Mr H, S. Waedell, M. Mr Bunny, in reply, argued that a party could not drive sheep from a clean district into an infected ope without holding a clean certificate for the sheep, and that it was necessary for the driver, independently of the. owner, to carry such n certificate. . The Court held that it was incumbent on any. person introducing sheep from a clean to an infected district to produce a clean certificate as a, passport to satisfy any inspector who might require it, and that from time td time the rams left the flock from which they were purchased they were a separate flock.

Mr Beard expressed regret that an inspector in a case of this kind should not have shut his eyes when clearly there was no wilful infraction of the law. The minimum fine—£lo—was a heavy one for such a venial offence.

J, Harvey, re-called by Mr Beard, said that when asked for a certificate by Mr Munroo he replied he had not got it, but llial Bishop had. The Court saidthe minimum penalty under the Statute was £lO, and the maximum £loo..This showed the importance the Legislature attached to the boundary question. It was doubtless felt that there was a danger of sheep which had crossed a boundary working back again. The minimum fine of £lO would be inflicted. Mr Board asked that Witnesses' expenses be taken out of the fine.

The Court said it had no power to make such an order. £3lss would be granted for Mr Munroe's expenses against the defendant. Bank of New Zealand v P. K, Corcoran.—Debt, £4O 9s. Judgment for amount and costs.

J. Wilson v P. G. Mangnusson.— Debt £34. Jungment for amount and costs.

Drummondv W. A. Rainie.—Breach of.Sheep Act, by removing skins of infected sheep from Anuiedalo station without securely packing, them in accordance with the 31st section of the Act. :

Mr Beard for the defendant admitted' the breach of the Act, but pointed out the stremonous efforts made by Messrs' Williams and Bsetham to clean oat a nest of scab and that under such circumstances they should have no obstacle placed in their way by the authorities.

Mr Bnnny for the informant said, only a minimum fine would be asked

The Court said there was no doubt as to the necessity of caution even when a man was doing his best to clean his run. He must guard against an oversight of this character. A fine of five pounds and costs would be inflicted, John Drummond v. .John Cross,— Breach of Sheep Act. Defendant did not appear, and the case was adjourned to June 2nd, Notice to be given defendant by the Court, Drummond v. Belliss.—Breach of Slieep Act. This case was heard some tiwe ago. Mr Beard appeared for defondant, asking for a re-hearing of the case, which the Court granted for the 9th June. Joseph Wilson was charged under section 7, of the Adulteration Act with selling adulterated liquor, . Sergeant McAvdle deposed, that on the 7th of March last ho bought a pint of whisky from the defendant fori analysis, which he sealed in'the pre-; s'ence ot Mrs Wilson, who supplied, it.' On April 7 he sent the sample, with; others, to Wellington, and subsequently' received an analysis from Wellington. Mr Beard asked to see the analysis before it was put into Court. ; The. Sergeant.objected to : Mr Beard seeing it till the Court;had inspected it- .;■",. ..■.■.;;..•,■..,;.■;

The Court ruled that Mr Beard had *. a right to see it in the first instance.

Mr Beard, after inspecting it, submitted that the document could not be put in as evidence, as the charge was not one of adulterating an article but of selling an adulterated article, The Court hold that the document •was admissible, Sergeant McArdle'deposed, that the certificate, signed by the official analyst showed that the whisky in question was 28;Q6 per cent, below proof. (To Mr Beard). He purchased three samples of spirits from Mr Wilson, the information was only laid with respect to one of them. .He.'supplied tho bottles, himself ■ which j wero labelled. Ho called at Mrs Wilson's and Mr Owen's. -He took N0..2 bottles to Mrs Wilson's.- He did not see a notice in the bar to the': effect that liquors wero mixed with water. He would not swear that the notice produced was not in the bar. Had he seen such a notice he would not have taken a sample from the bar. He did not remember going into the Commercial room. Did not see the notice hanging above the trap door in the bar. He looked to see if a notice of tho character was up, He could swear it was not in a prominent place in the bar. • .. Mr Beard said that' as a matter of fact two notifies were hanging above the bar.

The Court: That means a double isupply.of..water.? .. >,,, :,.; .;, ..-,■. ; ; Mr Beard said his defence was tho following notice:—"All spirits sold here mixed with water."

The Court: How do you bring tho knowledge of thai notice home?

Mr Beard submitted that any person with his eyes open could see such a notice, fle was prepared to show by the evidence of forty witnesses that two such notices had been in prominent positions in the bar since Mr Wilsone held the premises.; The Court said the Act gave a statutory right to reduce by water to tho extent of 25 degrees, but in this instance the limit had been In this case, too, the notice had not been brought home to. Sergeant McArdle, and could not be admitted.

Mr Beard submitted that'his client's case should not be prejudiced by the Sergeant's disregard of a plain notice. The Court held that .there was no notice; that the purchaser should have been told that the liquor supplied was not of the statutory strength. Such a notice was only a lazy way of evading the declaration required by the statute. Joseph Wilson called for the defence deposed that he purchased whiskey in Wellington which was charged on the account as being 7 degrees overproof. Whiskey was never retailed overproof. He put to each gallon of whiskey 2| pints of- water to reduce it to 15 degrees under proof. The notice produced hung over the trap door in the bar, and a second one hung beside it. A third was linn" in the commercial room. The notice produced had never been obscured or taken down. Mr Board submitted that there was no proof of a fraudulent intent, and that the information must tail on this ground. The Court held that the evidence supported a conviction, arid that if was its duty to convict. Now that a statutory standard was fixed, the only point it required to bo satisfied in was that liquor was sold below the standard. If from negligence or ignorance spirits were sold below the standard, the vendor must suffer. The offence of adding water was not a serious one, and a small penalty of twenty shillings would meet the case. Mr Beard gave notice of appeal. Sergeant McA.rdle placed before the Court a list of the costs of the analysis amounting to £i Is 4d, the principal item being one of ,£2 for buggy hire.' The Court refused to allow the special expenses.