Police Court.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 3309, 14 September 1889, Page 2

Police Court.

f EKETAHUNA-FBIDAY, (Before Messrs Alex, Anderson and Von lUm, J.IV) There were four charges set down for hearing, all being police cases. Tho first called was a breach of the Tiro Act and set forth" That one William Morris, of. Cartorton, did on the 4th day September, 1889, drive on the Opalti to Manawatu Boad, being a road undor tho control of the Wairarapa North County Council, a certain vehicle, to wit a goods brake on steel springs, the tires of tho wheels of which wore less than 2} inches in width and drawn by three horses."

Morris admitted the offence hut pleaded ignorance of such a by-law, and. asked tho Bench to deal leniently on that occount. He also stated that had he been aware the Act was in for;e he might have led one horso behind. C. Goddard was summoned by the Police in this case and claimed expenses; Morris was fined ss, and 17s costs, total 21s.

The next was Police v. John Prenter, the information being similar to above, with the oxcoption that the vehicle was tho stage coaoh between Eketahuna and Woodvillee. J. Prenter was not present but Chris Petersen appeared in his stead. The offence was admitted, Constable Eoche hero called Geo, Niale and asked him upon oath if be did not inform the County Olork (Mr Moore) that the coach with the narrow tires had been running for' threemonths. Neale after parrying the question for some time fiually said he did not remember, hut might have said in the course of a conversation ho had with Mr Moore that the narrow tired coach had been running " off and' on" for the last three months. •

C. Peterson, on oath, stated that the coach in question had not been out. of tho shed at Eketahuna until about a week previous to the sth inst, for several months, it only being used thou as the proper coach had broken down and was under repairs.-Cross-oxamined as to length of time coach had been in shed, ho said it was last used to bring Lord Onslow and party through, Tho Court in this case lined defendant 5s and 7a costs. BUEAOU OF IMPOUNDING ACT. Police v G. Neale. The information |in this case stated that:—"George Neale did, on the 4th September. 1889, at Eketahuna, neglect to supply an animal to wit a cow impounded in the public pound at Eketahuna with food and water." Constable Roche, for the prosecution, laid boforo tho Bench,as exhibits, certain newspapors, one containing tho advertisement of Noale's appointment as poundkeeper, and another of the sth September, advertising ■tho animal in question. He also pointed out to the Bench tint by the Act the poundkeeper must prove that 110 fed the animal, it being unnecessary for the prosecution to prove that he did not, Some argument followed regarding the meaning ol the Act. Neale pleaded " not guilty," and mado a long rambling statement, the gist of which was that he left the pound in charge of certain persons, viz., C. Goddard and Murrell, which he considered 110 had a right to do. Ho said he could not bo tied to the ground, aud on the occasion in question had gone to Masterton 011 business in connection with hispositionas Deputy Official Assignee. ■Mr Anderson; Do you wish to call any evidence Mr Neale 1 Defendant: Yes, your Worship, I will first call Mr Parsons,

Mr Parsons, sworn: Defendaut asked if he recollected a conversation he (defendant), had hold with Mr Murrell the ranger.

Mr Parsons stated he heard something over tho bar; as near as he could recollect Nealo had asked the ranger to sleep in his wliaro, C. Goddard called, denied on oath that he was in charge of the pound on the date of information or at all, Also denied evor having been a poundkeeper at all.

Defendaut then called W. Morris, but the Bench considered his evidence irrevalent to the case. Neale, in conclusion, said again that he was not liable, having left Murrell in charge. Tho Court, after five minutes adjournment, decided that Neale was liable, Mr Anderson said he was sorry for Neale, and advised him to leave the pound in bettor charge next time. The Beucli would deal with him as leniently as possible, and fine him 2s lid in each case (a second and similar information being laid), with costs, 7s and !)s respectively. Defendant askod time to pay in, and was granted a fortnight.