KAITANGATA COURT.

Clutha Leader, Volume XLII, Issue 63, 11 February 1916, Page 5

KAITANGATA COURT.

Yesterday. (Before Mr H. A. Young, S.M.) Cruelty to Animals. Wra, Townley, junr., farmer, of luehclutha, pleaded not guilty to a charge of cruelly ill-treating four draught horses by working them with sore shoulders. Mr Stewart appeared for defendant.—Constable Martin described the condition in which he found the horses. One of them had a running sore, which was in a bad way. Two of the horses had sacks to protect them. The sores were fairly large, Defendant had told him he was in a hurry to get the paddock ploughed.—Mr Stewart objected to Constable Martin producing an admission by defendant of his guilt.—For the defence Mr Stewart submitted that there was no ease for him to answer. He did not think defendant ought to be convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of the constable. It would have been a simple matter for the constable to have got someone else to have had a look at the horses.—The Magistrate fined defendant £lO, with court costs 7s, and expenses 7s 6d. Defence Cases. In the adjourned case of Police v. Kobert Wilson charged with failing to render personal service under the Defence Act, 1909, Sergt.-Major Shortall said that if the defendant was not medically unlit he would not have said that he. was unfit. This man had been on the missing roll since 1914, and had been put on by him. He did not think he told defendant he was unlit. Before he was on the missing roll he would have notices sent to him. —Defendant denied receiving any notices. —The Magistrate said the defendant had not satisfied him that he was medically unfit though he had had every chance to do so. Two doctors had certified that he was fit. He had not put in any drills for some considerable time, and he considered defendant was evading service.—Defendant was fined £5, with court costs 9s, service expenses 7s 6d. The Flounder Case. Charles Albert Capamagian was charged that on 9th January, 191b', at Port Molyneux, he did take and have in his possession flounders of a less size than nine inches. The Collector of Customs appeared for the Marine Department, and Mr Stewart appeared for defendant, who pleaded guilty.

The Collector of Customs said that defendant had in his possession 16 flounders of less size than nine inches. The case was not a serious one. He did not press for a heavy penalty, but if private individuals took fish like this they, should be made to pay for it. He said that while the regular fishermen respected the law private individuals went fishing with impunity, and were not particular as to size.

For the defence Mr Stewart said that defendant had taken the fish quite openly. There had not been any deliberate intention on his part to break the law. He only visited Port MolyneuK once a year. Counsel thought that it was unfair on the part of the Government to place restrictions on fishing in the sea. The regulations, ill his opinion, were meant to apply to the regular fisherman who went trawling. This was the first prosecution ih these parts. The regulation regarding flounders had been practically a dead letter for years. If the Dpartment was going to be vigilant it snould let the people know the position. The Magistrate asked i the persons with defendant at the time were responsible members of the community, but Mr Stewart was unable to satisfy his Worship on that point. In conclusion Mr Stewart submitted that if defendant were convicted and discharged that would meet the case. The Magistrate said the position was that defendant had been found with undersized flounders in his possession. The regulations provided a minimum penalty of £l, and a maximum penalty of £2O. As there had been no prosecutions in these »parts fo rsome time, and us these men were | really holiday makers and not professional fishermen he would inflict the ' minimum penalty of 11, with expenses 1 17s 9d.