Another Wash-up on the Whataupoko.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 195, 13 September 1888, Page 2

Another Wash-up on the Whataupoko.

The Whataupoko Pound seems to be a general source of vexation and trouble. Another case arising from it was brought out in Court on Tuesday, and offered a good opportunity for what is known as the "washing of dirty linen." John Searle was charged on the information of John Fisher with unlawfully rescuing a dark brown mare, seized by the informant for the purpose of being impounded. Mr Macdonald appeared for the informant, and Mr Brassey for the defendant. Mr Macdonald in explaining the case, said the penalty was not exceeding £50, and it was necessary that in a case of this kind the public officer should be protected. John Warren, clerk of the Whataupoko Road Board, gave formal evidence. To Mr Brassey : Some of the people had grumbled at the way Mr Fisher had been conducting his work. To the Bench: Had reported to the Board that Mr Fisher had been subjected to annoyance. To Mr Macdonald: Had been complained to by Messrs Harris and Searle. The complaints were to the effect that they could not leave their horses out for a minute before they were grabbed. John Fisher, ranger, deposed that about 1.30 on the day in question he saw a brown horse on the road, and went after it. John Searle followed him up, caught hold of the rope, and dared him to untie it. He then pulled the rope out of his (witness') hands and let the horse go. He called witness a d—— old sneak, and said he was robbing people to take money out of their pockets, and that all he (Searle) wanted to do was to hunt witness out of the pound. The horse was tethered to a post, and was across the drain feeding on the road.

To Mr Brassey: Had been poundkeeper since 6th August. Lived next Searle’s. Had been living in a tent, but was now getting a place put up. The was no water-closet there, but he had not been in the habit of attending to the wants of nature near Searle’s fence, nor had they threatened to wash him with a bucket of water. Would swear that he had not when he first went over there allowed the Searles to tether their horses on the same section. Had at first, for about two or three weeks, some of the young Searles to attend to the pound duties. Had not been watching this horse for some considerable time to pounce on it. Had seen it there two hours previously. It was his duty to take any horse tied to a fence, if the horse was feeding on the road. He had not seen John Searle coming until he (witness) had got hold of the rope. Mr Brassey: Do you wish the Bench to believe that you did not see John Searle leave the house? Witness: I am telling the truth; you will get nothing more than the truth out of me. Mr Brassey : I hope we won't. Witness: You won’t. In reply to Mr Brassey, as to whether having seen the horse there for two hours the ranger did not consider it his duty to impound it, he said he had not done so because he had to go after some cattle. John Searle deposed that he was sitting behind a bush close to the horse on Saturday August 1, at about one o’clock. Fisher came along; witness jumped up and took hold of the horse saying “No you don’t.” Fisher tried to take the horse away from him. Had taken pity on the plaintiff, as he had only a tent to live in during the wet weather, and had allowed him to sleep in a small house next to the stable, but they had to clear him out on account of his offensive habits. Witness also threatened to throw a bucket of water over Fisher to cleanse him. The horse was not tied to the fence.

Mr Macdonald said it appeared to him that the question was whether the horse was tied up or not. Mr Brassey submitted that had nothing to do with the question. He thought the plaintiff had brought the case before the Court out of pique and malice, and there was not the slightest shadow of testimony in support of the charge. The Bench held that the case was proved. The ranger was appointed for the purpose of keeping the roads clear of horses and cattle, and it was absolutely necessary that public servants should be protected as far as possible. At the same time they did not think the case called for a heavy penalty. The defendants would be fined £1 and costs, £1 6s. Another case arising out of the seizure of another horse was also heard. In this case Fisher laid an information against John and William Searle for illegally rescuing a light brown mare, which the plaintiff had seized from a section in his occupation, for the purpose of impounding. Mr Macdonald appeared for the informant, and Mr Brassey for the defendants. Mr Warren gave evidence that the section on which the horse was tethered belonged to the Road Board and was in informant’s occupation. The ‘section was not fenced. John Fisher deposed that on September 1st there was a mare tied near Mr Searle’s fence, on the pound section. He went up, and was in the act of untying the rope from the peg, when John Searle came and put both his feet on the peg. His brother William then came out and pulled the rope out of witness’ hands, Saw William Searle about two hours before this, and told him he would impound the mare if she was not removed. Searle said he would pound his head if he (witness) tried to pound the mare. He did not pound the mare because he was afraid he would get his head smashed. Owen Dwyer gave evidence as to the rescue of the horse by Searles. John Searle deposed that when Fisher went to seize the horse he caught hold of the rope, and Fisher tried to take the rope from him. He had been in the habit of tethering the horse on that section, and complainant had payer attempted to impound it before. His brother was no party to the seizure, He only came up on hearing the row. William Searle, in his evidence, denied having anything to do with the rescue. Fisher had given permission to tether the horse on the section. James Brown deposed to seeing the horse tied on the section frequently. The Bench considered the offence had not been proved in the slightest degree. It had been proved by tbe defendants that they had been given permission to run their horses on the section in question, and witnesses had been called to show that the horse had constantly been grazing on the section. The case would be dismissed with costs, £1 13s.