RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Inangahua Times, Volume XI, Issue 1752, 3 September 1886, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

(Before Majoe Kbddell, R.M.)

Thursday, Sept. 2nd, 1886.

Heslop (Rate Collector) v. M'Fahiane,

An information churgitig defendant with hawking without license.

Defendant did not appear, having forwarded a cheque for the amount of the license' fee, but not the coit of 80111 .710118. \

! Mr Moynihan for the prosecutor read a ra her amusing letter from defendant at Hokitika, and stating that the writer could not possibly have the pleasure of meetiutf His Worship in Reefton on thia oceanic^, owing to pressing business engagements. His Wor%l»p wislied to have some evidence of the breach of the law. th« plaintiff^ aft also Constable Haldane of BonAma»'» were called and gave v»d«Mc« ajljfo t.l«e 'facts. Judgment to* $w amount claimed and cmte, less th« anujpnt of cheque forwarded. Nominal fipe of 1/- inflicted. f ; | Police v. ])iok. Defendant was charged on the information of Constable Meehan with permitting the chimney of his bakery to catch fire. Constable Meehan sratre evidence as to the offence. Sergi. S ! attery fc*pla|ned that dpfendant only to 1c poa*e««flion of the premises on the duy on which the fire tecnnred. '' -I

His Worship said that wa« no excuse. Fined 5/ and costs. Police v. M'LbUkok. Charge of permitting horses to stray in Reeftotl. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Constable Meehan proved having seen three horses straying. -/He drove the horses and they went irt the direction of defendant's wasrg° D »

Defendant snid it was customary for waggoners to camp in'a certain place. This he did. He held that $he police had failed to prove that the horses belonged to him. Lots of horses go towards the waggons at night that have no right to be them His Worship said there must be some absolute proof of ownership in cases of this kii.d. He had no doubt the conclusion of the constable was the current one, biit still that; was not evidence. Information dismissed.

Brazil v. M'Farlak*. Information charging defettant with ;itfterfering with a view to pfevent the impouixling of cattle. * > ■-» ■■">■' ' "*

Mr Moynihan appeared for plaintiff and Mr North for defendant. Jnhn Brazil : lam a farmer at Fern Fi|H. defendant is a neighbour of mine. : on the 15th Augnst last I went across the river to my ground ; fonad five of Cochrane's horses iv my paddock ; drove them to the end of he paddock, ami then went to Cochrane's and saw Cochrane and asked him if he would p»y for the horses befove they went t» the ponnd ; I then went over ayaiu and drove tiie horses down to the river; when I no there I saw defeii* dant and young Cochrane vanning towards the ho>«es with whips; the horses hud crossed the river and they drove them over the »ivei back again ; I was driving the m to the pound ; the footbridge was near me, I started U> £0 over; Coi-lnane got on the bridge and stopped me from crossing; defendant thni came behind me and gave me a stroke ; did not tell defendant that 1 was driving the horses to the pound. By Mr North : There was nobody in the paddock when I found the horses there ; having put the horses across the river I went to c.oss tit— bridge ; defendant drove the horSt-s bosh before ;tnd alter i told him t-o le.ive tiie,<» alone ; he put the horses iuto the river again; I have often driven Cochrane'* horses out of my paddock before. Goorgo L< wrie : T was in Brazil's paddock with pluintitf; lie took four or live horses of Coclmuie's out of the paddock and drove them into the river ; he crofisud thi'tu ; I then saw Cochmiie aud defendant ruiniins/ down to stop the horses. By Mr i.rth : Henrd no words pass between Brazil and M'Karlaiie ; Oochntne and Isnizil were scnfflintf on the bridge before M'Fuvlane got on the bridne. This closed the case for the informant. Mr North submitted that there wa nothinu whatever to answer. Plaintifl having failed to inform defendant that he was driving the horse to the pound, tUoro was no case under the section upon which the information had been laid.

Mr Moynihan contended there was evidence of a premeditated attempt at rescue, which was sufficient to sustain the

chartre.

His Worship said there was no evidence that defendant know what plaintiff was going to do with the horses, and in the absence of that knowledge it was not an unreasonable assnmptim that he merely did his duty in preventing the horses from straying away. Information dismissed.

Same v. Cochrane. This a similar information, but was withdrawn by Mr Moynihan. Mr North asked for costß both in this and the former case.

I His Worship said he would n<«t grant costs. Defendants imsfht thank Mr North 1 for escaping, and should be well satisfied to pay his fee.