LITTLE BO-PEEP.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3391, 5 December 1911, Page 2

LITTLE 80-PEEP.

ON THE TRACK OF AN ITINERANT COW. SEQUEL IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT. A NOMINAL FINE IMPOSED. T'lio much-discussed question of waxidering cuttle formed tlxe subject of two cases before tlx© S.M. Court yesterday when, upon tlxe information or Vernon Nossxtor, Frank Price and Una McLeod were proceeded against for having illegally rescued cattle which had been seized for the purpose of being impounded. Mr. J. It. Kirk appeared for the informant and Mr. Nolan for tlxe ■defendants, and it was agreed to treat the two informations as one. Mr. Kirk expressed the hope that the cases would result in some finality being given to the question. it was not necessary for him to remind His Worship what amount of annoyance was caused by stock wandering, and ali though there was no vindictive nature | in the present proceedings, he would like to see the matter given some finality. He would call: Vernon Nossiter, fireman, deposed that he owned certain sections of land in the township of El in, Mangapapa, having frontages to two streets, namely Oak and Pine Streets. On Labor Day witness returned from work about 1.130 p.m., and shortly afterwards noticed two cows on the read. Half an hour later he went with his son and drove one of the cows along the road. After driving it about nine chains he was stopped by the defendants. The defendant McLepd ran towards the cow, striking at it with a stick, but witness called to her to leave it alone, saying that she could not get it without paying the driving fees. She persistedl in driving the cow, however, and took the one he was driving down to the point where the second cow was, and then drove both away. Price then spoke vo the witness, saying that he had no right to interfere with the cows. Neither of the defendant's ■ were about when witness seized tile cattle. The same cattle had caused witness a great deal of annoyance, breaking clown his fences and trespassing on his ground. Several times witness had spoken to Mr McLeod about the matter. About eighteen months ago the cows had been in witness’s garden three times in one weeds. Despite continued requests, Mr McLeod had made no move to keep his cattle off the road. To Mr. Nolan witness stated that he know that none of Mr. Mel .ecd’s paddocks had water in them, and that the cows had to bo driven to water each day. When witness went to seize the cattle he saw a man named Marshall about nine chains away. Witness did not, at that time, mention that he intended impounding the stock. Other people’s stock was sometimes on the road, and witness had at various times impounded other animals. When Miss McLeod and Price came after him they came from the garden. Mr .Kirk: A case of Little 80-Peep over again?

Witness: Yes. A neighbour ran across the road and told them. His Woiship: You believe so? Witness: Yes. Air. Kirk; And the cows were roaming about at their own sweet will? Witness: Yes.

| Charles Nosittor, eleven years of age, 1 gave evidence m support of the former witness’s statements. He "was driving one cow and his father was driving the j other when the defendants came out 1 of the garden. i Una McLeod, one of the defendants, J gave evidence as to going for the cows i on the day in question, saying that she turned them up the road after letting them out of the paddock. She then went on ahead and opened the gate loading to the spring. She returned by wav of the house—a short cut —and there met Marshall, who told her what ! was happening to the cows. She called ! Price and they went out and took the i cows, witness having been away only five or six minutes. No one else was in charge while witness was away. Robert Marshall, gardener, also gave evidence discrediting Nossitcr’s statement that the cows had been on the road for half an hour. Air. Barton remarked that there was no doubt that the cows were at large and, in his opinion, the informant was within his rights in his intention to impound them. The defendants know well enough that the cows were being impounded, and they' had no right to interfere. He did not, however, consider it was a case for a heavy penalty, nor did the informant press for one. He thought a fine of 10s would meet the case, and defendants would he ordered to pay costs amounting to- £1 Ss in each case.