R.M. COURT, HAMILTON.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 2548, 8 November 1888, Page 2

R.M. COURT, HAMILTON.

Yesterday—(Before Capt. Jackson, R.M,

CRIMINAL. Shekp Inspector v. H. Buttlk, for having lice-infected sheep. Defendant admitted the charge, and was fined £1, and coats 7s. Clkrk Waikato County Council v. W. M. Hay, for fast driving over the Narrows Bridge in bre.ich of by-law. Prosecutor (Capt. McPherson) pro Ineed proof of his office, of the county boundaries and by-laws, and stated the said bridge was tinder the jurisdiction of the Waikato County.—His Worship referred to sumo alterations in tho law bearing on the by-laws, but Mr Hay objected to the Bench assisting prosecutor when counsel was available. —His Worship admitted he was not there to help prosecution.—Mr Hay said the by-law had not been advertised in terms of the Act, 1 10secutor declined to say whether the bylaws, by special order, had been advertised once in each week as required by the Act.—Mr Hay said notice had been served on informant to produce certain papers, but lie refused to do so, and considered it an impertinence on defendant's part to ask for them. The seal of the County had not been produced. In answer to defendant, prosecutor said the Tamahere Bridge was in the Waikato Comity. He was conveyed over it the other day, his daughter drove the buggy at a walking pace. Had never been over it at other than a walking pace. He generally returned from Cambridge before ten o'clock at night, and in the same spirits as when he went there. Mr Hay argued the prosecution had utterly failed in face of Section 'J of Public Works Act, 1887, Amendment Act, 1881, which provides that where the banks of a river are in two different counties, the control of bridges, ferries, etc., across it shall be in the hands of the Governor, who may vest them in any local body.—Capt. MePherson contended the said bridge was vested in the Waikato County before the amended Act came in force. His Worship said section had since been repealed, and the Counties Act ISSG made provision for the regulation of bridges, etc. Mr Hay said that there was no evidence that the bridge was out of the control of the Governor, and argued that the by law is bad because the bridge is between two counties, and Clause 20'J, of Counties A.ct, ISSG, provides fur two counties making joint regulations for control of bridges, &c., which had not been done in this case. Where there is separate control, by-laws may be held to be good in part and bad in part. He quoted Section 82 of Public Works Act, 1882, which had not been repealed, and which stated that a bridge was controlled by local body for the purpose of construction and maintenance, and not to make by-laws. The by-law was not intended to save the fabric from injury, but to protect tho lives of persons crossing it. He gave evideuce of tho notice of the Special Order being irregularly adveitised in The Waikato Timks. The Court said it would have to look into the law bearing on the control of the bridge, and deferred judgment. Rabbit Inspector v. J. Wills.—Neglect to destroy rabbits, as required by the Act, on his land near Alexandra. Mr Hay for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Mr O'Neill for prosecutor. Mr Hay said this was a case of excessive hardship. Defendant is a new settler of only six months

date, and had in that time done his best to exterminate the pest, some 11500 having been killed. There was Government, land adjoining which was a cover for the rabbits. He asked the Court to give an expression of opinion which would deter tho Inspector

from taking such extreme steps. The Court said it could not help feeling for the settlers, but tho Act was strict to keep the nuisance down, and there was no help but to convict. —H. Hargraves, Rabbit Agent, gave evidence as to the state of the land and sorving the notice. —H. Oldham, Inspector, gave evidence »f similar nature. He said there were a few acres of Government land, but that had been entirely cleaned. He served a notice on Mr Wills a few days after he came on the farm. During the winter rabbitß had been taken for the Auckland market, but not since, It was not his place to advise what means were to be taken to destroy the rabbits, 'out destroyed they had to be. After a good deal of further evidence from witnesses, the court reserved judgment. Same v. R. McNaul.—Similar charge. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Judgment reserved. Same v. J. Allen.—Defendant pleaded not guilty. Judgment reserved. CIVI6 CASES. C. J. W. Barton v. E. P. Donnelly.— Claim, £11 10s. Mr Hay for defendant. Mr Hay objected to the hearing on the grounds that plaintiff has since the summons was issued been adjudged a bankrupt, and was not competent to sue. Mr J. Edgecumbe informed tho court that lie was authorised by the Official Assignee to appear for him on behalf of the estato. Mr Hay objected to Mr Edgecumbe appearing, not being a solicitor. On the application of Mr Edgecumbe, the court adjourned the case to enable the Official Assignee to issue a fresh summons.