R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3492, 23 April 1890, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

oarteelo|-tuebdayß

(Before .Ool'onel. : Rob'erts,\E.M.) Constable R.Darbyv JabezJohnston.—lnfringement of the Slaughter house A ct. Mr Beard for accused. ■

0, H. Ordish deposed that ho knew the accused, but did not see him slaughtering cattle. Bought somo beef from him at the middle of Inst month (about 195 pounds) and paid for it.

Mrs Spohr, wife of Wm Spohr, residing at Matarawa, deposed.to buying some beef from the aooused about the middle of last month,' but had not had any from him on any other occasion. .

James Ticeburat, a farmer residing at Matarawa, deposed to seeing a dead beast, on the property of the accused, but did'not see him kill it; he was skinning the' beast when he saw him. Did not give him any assistance either to skin it or help him pull it up the scaffold. Constable B. Darby, Inspector of Slaughterhouses, deposed that the accused did not hold a license under the Slaughterhouse License Act. Mr Beard on behalf of the accused asked that the information be dismissed on the grounds of the informability of the : information, In addressing the Court on the oase, he stated that he did net intend to bring any witnesses tor the defence, but simply to leave the matter in the hands of the Court, The information was dismissed. John Drummond v John Burrow. Mr Bunny for informant,: Mr Beard for defendant. The'information was laid under Section 9 of the Babbit Act,

James Harvey, Inspector under the Babbit Act, deposed that he knew the property known as Brooklands, and previous to May, 1880, he , visited the property, and it belonged to the defendant at that time. Also

went over the property on or about the 29th June 1889, and saw places where the rabbits were numerous, and that nothing ns being done to destroy them. Again in July of the same year he visited the property, and Baw a small portion of poisoned grain laid about,' but not sufficient. , To Mr Beard: Mr Herd told him that he was looking after the property for Mr Burrow, the present defendant, and told him also that he ,wa3 going to see Mr Burrow .'about poisoning. Ho did not on any other occasion say anything which would lead "to the conclusion that Mr Burrow was the owner of the property. Would not swear that it was not prior to June, 1889, that Mr Herd told him that Mr Burrow was trying to sell the property. The property was now in the possession of Mr H.D. Crawford. ■■

To Mr Bunny: I do hot'know when Mr Crawford took possession of the property. The property might belong to Mr. Burrow now. John Drummondj Babbit Inspector, deposed that he knew the property known as Brooklands, which comprised about 600 acres, and that he caused a notice to be served on the defendantonthe 22nd May, 1889, to destroy tbe rabbits on the aforesaid property. Did dot receive any communication from the defendant as to the ownership of the property, until lie toot action agianst hiui lait July. Sufficient steps had not been taken to destroy the rabbits. .When the defendant was "served" with the summons lie then, told him that he was not the owner of the property, and on the morning on which the case was to be heard he told him that if he did not pressfora heavy penalty he wonld plead guilty, but if he pressed for a heavy penalty he should employ counsel. Told him that the case was in the hands of the Court. To Mr Beard: Both informations were laid for the same offence,-and in the same name. The last information was laid in November last, and the reason that the information had not been sooner laid was to produce evidence as to the ownership of the property, as the defendant denied tho ownership of the property when the casewas before theCourtinNoYember.

Tho Inspector refused to answer Mr Beard's question as to why he allowed such a lapse of time since tbe last information and the present one. The Court deolined to compel the Inspector to answer the question, as tbe counsel for the informant had already stated that the delay occurred through riot being able to find out whether the defendant was the person really liable or not. The Inspector did not remember saying anything In evidence on the previous occasionsaboufc his conversation with Mr Burrow about the property. As a r'ulo, as soon as anyone got a summons under the Babbit Act, the parties at once let him know if they were not the interested personß, but the present defendant did not make any objection as to the owner-' ship until the case was broughtbefore the Court on tho previous occasion, In cross-examination the Inspector said that tho previous information was laid on the fthNovember last and (as far as he knew) was the owner of the property and is still the owner. Mr Beard addressed the Court and stated that as the same subject had been previously before the Court aud dismissed, the Court had no alternative but to dismiss the present information under section 71 of -the Justices of the Peace Act,

Mr Bunny having replied to the objectious raised by the counsel for tlie defence, His Worship decided that the certificate for dismissal which had been given be upheld, and that the prwent information bo dismissed, without costs, on the grounds that the certificate of dismissal was a bar against any further information being laid on the same matter against the present defendant. B. W. Eagle v K. Eobinsori. Claim ,£Blos 6d. Mr Acheson for plaintiff, Mr Beard for defendant. Judgment oonfessed; usual costs allowed,

Q. Osborne vT. L. Grace. Judgment summons for £lO and costs.Mr Middleton for judgment creditor. No appearance of defendant. Order made for amount to be paid oh service of notice, in default 14 days' imprisonment. 0. Bowles v J. W. Middleton. Adjourned case from last sitting of the Court, in whioh plaintiff claimed £24 16s. Mr Acheson for defendant, A set-off to the sum of £4812s U against the amount claimed was put in by defendant for services rendered in his legalcapacity as solicitor to the plaintiff in various suits.. The setoff was allowed, and judgment was given for the defendant for the balance with costs. -' D.' P.'.Loasby v'A, O.'Bayliss,' 1 Claim for £1 Bs. 6d. Judgment for plaintiff with costs 9s. '2^

* Mads Gundersbn v W, Booffi' M Co. Claim £19 16s for work done, Mr Bunny for plaintiff, Mr Bearct for |tat pit|li»ti« efwfCiMty ;"":■•'/'"'■