R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 3296, 30 August 1889, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

masteSton-fbiday. (Before Col. Roberts R,M.) MIEAOH'OF TUB BANKRUPTCY ACT. The caso for. the prosecution of 0. E. Beckman' having closed, Mr Board addressed the Court at considerable length, claiming for his client a dismissal on the-ground that it had not-been proved that Beckman intended leaving the Colony or that he intended swindling his creditors. Hefcrring to thoproceeds of the sale of the property to Mr Toohill, he said the purchase money was paid over to Mr Beckman as trustee or agent for Mrs Beckman. So far as he had been able Beckman had used his influence to induce Mrs Beckman to pay his creditors. The evidence went' to show Beckman had handed the money over to his wife and asked her to pay the debts with it, Whether it was his wife's or his own money it was his honest intention to liquidate tlio debts with it, and there was not one atom of evidence to show fraud, The Detective said the money was found on Mrs Becltman who handed over to him £250 to pay the lawful.debts of Beckman. Tlio prosecution seemed to rely for a

iroof that he wanted to leave the

Colony upon the ovidenco that Beckman came down to Masterton, cashed the cheque and got in tho train at Kuripuni, and left at Kaiwarm without waiting to embraco his fellow passengers. That faot did not prove his intention of leaving tho Colony, The evidence showed he was fairly hounded by his creditors and wanted to gain time for the purpose of ascertaining his position, lie had po knowledge of tho bankruptcy proceedings taken against

him at tlio time of bis arrest. Beckman's actions were in some instances no doubt of a foolish nature but there was a difference between folly and criminal intent. The proceedings in making Beckman a bankrupt were also incomplete through want of notice being given by tho Official Assignee. He asked the Court to say whether « prima facio case had been mado out sufficient to warrant a committal, and put the country to aueh a great an expense, there being no less than twenty-four witnesses in the case who would have to be bound over to appear at the Supreme Court. Accused was committed' for trial, bail being allowed but not forthcoming.

(Before A.W. Eenallandß, Boys J.P.'s) Alfredton Koad Board v W, and J. Branuigan. Claim for rates £sl4s 7d. Mr Beard lor plaintiffs, Mr Skipper for defendant. A sot off was put in but not allowed. Judgment for amount and costs £Bl3s. Burns and wife v H. S. Wardell. Claim S.l 10s work and labor as married couple, Mr Pownall for plaintiffs, Mr Beard for defendant. A further claim by Elizabeth Buiiis against samo defendant for £lO damages for assault was heard. £'l 10s was paid by defendant into Court, being amount of wages due for the fortnight during which they were in his employment, The evidence showed that the parties went to Mr Wardell's station on July 15. On tho morning of Sunday 20th, Mrs Burns was preparing breakfast when Miss Maud Wardell found fault with the table, and asked her if she thought that was a table fit for ladies to sit down to. Mrs Burns said it was laid in the usual manner, Miss Wardell ordered her (imperiously) to removo those crumbs. Mrs Burns indignantly retorted that if the crumbs offended liershe could remove them herself, The crumbs in question it transpired were the fragments of abread and butter bmquet of which tho younger members of the Wardell family had partaken at a late hour on the Saturday night previous, after the table had been duly laid for broakfast, While the altercation between Mrs Burns and Miss Wardell was proceeding Mr Wardell emerged from his room. Miss Wardell complained to him " this woman won't lay the table," and Mrs Burns alleges that she had no sooner laid a flagon of hotwalerdownthauMrWardellstruck her a severe blow on the back "of the head and another further down tho back, repeating tho blows twico over, Miss Wardell screaking "Oh pa." Mrs Burns screamed, and her husband appearing on the sceno, ended the turmoil, Tho couple alleged that they were ordered off by Mr Wardell and they took thoir departure immediately after. In consequence of the sudden dismissal they claimed £5 in lieu of a month's notice. The Bench made an order for the .£2 10s paid into Court aud nonsuited plaintiffs with regard to tho further amount with 21s costs.

Mr Wardell gave his version of the alleged assault, stating that hearing tho altercation with his his daughter on entering tho dining, room he ordered Mrs Bums to lay the table, tihe persistently refused. He then ordered hnr to leave tho .premises and she kept saying in defiant tones" 1 will not," and he simply put his hand on her shoulder and pushed her. He.emphatically denied having struck her, saying that as an employer of laborfor thirty years ho knew bettor,

Tho Bench said tho usage might have been a littlo rough but there wits no premeditation, and taking into consideration tho surrounding circumstances they must dismiss the case, llr Pownall gave notice of appeal. Mr Beard said he would make no claim for costs. FRIDAY. (BcforeCql. Roberts, R.M.) KAIIBITS. Win. Clapjiam was proceeded against for failing tp destroy rabbits on his property at Kopuaranga and Mungapakeha, Mr Bunny appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Poivnall for defendant Inspector Druunuond and Rabbit Agent Gayfer gave evidence, the latter stating that notice was served on 22nd May. He inspected the property on 28th May, and found rabbits numerous. Again on Bth August they were- still numerous, poison had been laid down but not in sufficient quantity, only IGOlbs. Ho had ascertained this information from Mr Eutherfcrd, the man in charge. Mr Pownall cross-examined the rabbit agent as to v;het : l)er tl|o prqtest notice of 22nd May would' roaoh defendant boforo tho inspection on 28th May, and stigmatised the rapidity of the visit on the back of the notice as sharp practice, Mr Pownall claimed that tho information must bo dismissed, as tl)ere was nothing before tho Court to show thai Mr Drnmmoud was an inspector under the Act. Ho had failed tp prove his" appointment, suid had no| produced the Gaaette cpiitainihg Mv Bunny contended that Mr Drummond was publicly recognised as the Inspector, and it was for tho other side to Drove that he was not.

. 'Hie point was reserved, and the case put back till 2 o'clock, Herbert S. Wavdell was prosecuted under section 10 of the Babbit Act, On 17th January last he had been lined under the 9th section of the Act 20s, James Harvey, rabbit agent, gave evidence that every month since the date of the last conviction he had inspected'the property if defendant. Babbits were very numerous up to July, in which month poison was being laid, He reported to Inspector Drummoiid. Inspected a portion of

the run, which is 4000 acres in extent, where poison had not been laid and found rabbits very numerous

there, That was about 400 acrea in extent aud adjoined Pike's property, By Mr Beard: Had observed that poison had been .laid.plentifully in parts, Would not bo surprised to hear a sum of £49 or £SO had been expended in poison. Rabbits had decreased on the run since the conviction excopt upon the portion referred to. Mr Bunny said he would only ask for the minimum penalty for the last four months. Mr Beard reforred to sections 9 andlO of the Act of 1882, which pointed out that it must be laid by an Inspector, and to do a thing which in the opinion of the subinspector was no offence at all. In tho interpretation clauso au Inspector is a slieop inspector duly appointed undor tho Sheep Act.. A subinspector of sheep is an inspector under the Babbit Act. -But there is no such office as Sub-inspector under the Babbit Act, and it was' novor .intended to give such powers as the Act provided to other than an Inspector, Another point ho would raise, which ho held must bo fatal to the' prosecution, Section 45 of the Justices of Peace Act which says the

information must be laid within a period of six months. Taking the date of the conviction at 17th January the six months would expire on )7th July, and the information was not laid until August 2nd, moro than a fortnight beyond the limit. If His Worship held the information was good an Inspector might go back to.a period often years, and supposing hiin to be fined in the full ponalty of £IOO a month, he could bo fined in £12,000. All this power was iu tho hands of one mau, aud if His Worship upheld tho prosecution, the first thing an Inspector might do would be to go back to some of the old convictions of six or eight years ago, and ruin the settler, Mr War- [ doll had been allowed to go on for ' six months under the impression that ' he was doing good work, and it was [ not until tho six months had oxpirod that the information was laid. Mr Bunny road a clause in tho Act ' showing where the word " inspeotor" and "sub inspector" might be taken i and substituted one for the other, As rogards the second plea, he j contended the matter of the informa- , tion arose in oach month as the offence was committed.

His Worship said it would bo necessary to givo a ruling on so important a point, as it would ho likely to arise from time to time. The case was adjourned until Friday next, in order to consider tho point raised,