R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 6, Issue 1700, 2 June 1884, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON.-THIS: DAY.

(BeforeB.S.WAitDELL,E.M.)

Ingram y William Morris—Leaving a dray and two horses unattended and without lights on Monday evening opposite Boy al. Hotel contrary, to the Borough by-laws, Fined five shillings and costs,

Amelia Mackerslay v. William Mackerslay.—Protection order, Mr Skipper for the defendant who appeared in the box on crutches. . The informant stated that last Sunday morning her husband slapped her face.' Her husband had only struck her once, but ho had used obsceno language: to her and her children, Mr Skipper denied the obscene language;;' ■*'-'• .

The informant: "He has more need to pay tho rent of his house than to employ a lawyer! He slapped the children too 1". '■.''"'''.

The 'Court": You can step down for the present,l. .......

John Drurnmond v John, Cross.— Breach of Sheep Act, Mr Bunny for informant, and Mr Beard for defendant.

J. Drummond, inspector, deposed that Haudyside Roberta and Co.'s run was within his subdivision. On the Uth March he saw defendant driving sheep through it. There were 14 merino ratns which he'had driven from A.kiteo through an infected run,

To Mr Beard: Defendant saw him inspecting some sheep at Mataikuna as he passed, and sent for him.. Witness went and helped him to cross his sheep over the river into a paddock. The infected run in question was now clean. ■■■■■•

To Mr Bunny: Defendant had travelled tho sheep some 16 or 17 miles through the run. He gave him friendly help to cross.the river. To the Court: He gave no permission to the defendant to drive.

'F. Sheath, manager of the Mataikuna run" deposed that he saw Mr Cross driving sheep on March 14, through Handyside's run. Cross told him' a few days before that he was going to Akiteo, for rams. John Harvey was called as a witness for the informant, but did not appear.

Mr Beard submitted that the case against his client had failed. Tho Inspector had power'to give permission to drive the sheep, and the assistance given by the Inspector to drive the sheep was an implied permission, He submitted that there could be neither friendly conversation nor friendly action between an Inspector and a person driving sheep. Mr Bunny, in reply, submitted that no sheep should be. driven through an infected run, .unless the. Inspector was satisfied that certain precautions had. been taken. The offence was committed before the Inspector assisted the defendant to cross jbhe river, and before the precautions required by the Inspector could have been taken..

The Court: .Was the Mataikuna run clean at the'time.

The Inspector: It received a clean certificate two days later. The Court thought tho act of the Inspector, though kindly meant, must be accepted as an act of satisfaction with the course taken by Mr Cross. When' ho became a party to driving the'sheep it must be considered that he was so satisfied. "What he did was a little inconsistent with his public office, if the act were "not severed, from his position as Inspector, Judgement was given for the defendant, but.the Court declined 1 to grant costs'against the informant,

Mr Beard, applied for expenses of his witness Mr.U. Meredith, : . ,

The Court held that by % the greatest chance in life defendant had escaped a beayy. penalty, and it.was'noi going to order costs against the iuformanfc, •:. ,Mr: Bunny gave notice of appeal.■.