SWEARING DROVERS

Evening Star, Issue 22031, 17 May 1935, Page 8

SWEARING DROVERS

LUCKY TO ESCAPE GAOL SEQUEL TO WILD CATTLE DRIVE The wild drive of cattle by intoxicated horsemen at Anderson’s Bay and Tomahawk in February, when gardens Were trampled on and filthy language was used by the drovers, had its sequel in the Police Court to-day, when two youiig men—Robert Allan Crawford and Alexander M‘Don aid —were fined £5 for using obscene language and were told that they were fortunate in escaping gaol. To charges of using obscene language and of disorderly behaviour, M’Doliald pleaded guilty, but Crawford (who was represented by Mr J. F. G. Stark) pleaded not guilty. Ina Dyer, residing at Tomahawk road, said that on the evening of February 9 she heard horses galloping on the footpath, and going to the front she saw three men on horseback driving cattle. The men seemed to be intoxicated. Accused looked like one of them, but he was dressed differently. She had taken more notice of the dreadful language used. They went down p.ast the cemetery and returned about an hour later. The cows appeared to have raced along the road and to have had the whips used on them. , ... Cross-examined, she said that she did not leave her house, but the men were within 20 yards of her. She could not swear that accused had used the language ; but the user was the ‘ little man.” , . Elizabeth Phillip, of Highcliff road, said three, men oh horses had allowed cattle to go over her garden plot. Two were galloping. She told them that the cattle were quiet and she could drive them herself, and one said: “ Perhaps you could, hut we are drunk-. One of the horsemen rode across the Pl To Mr Stark: She could not definitely identify Crawford. John Henry M’Keefry said he first noticed the cattle wandering, and later accused and a “ tall, dark man galloped past the cows and later returned. Bad language was being used by both men. The behaviour continued off and i for about an hour. He was afraid that the mep would injure themselves iv falling off their horses. He reprimanded one of the men for his conduct on Miss Phillip’s property, and accused then arrived. Later the third horseman appeared; he had a restraining influence on his companions. To Mr Stark; He definitely identified Crawford. ~ , m , , Austin Henrv Rabbett, of lomahawk road, said a cow was forced over a 3ft Gin wall into his garden by the men, one of whom told him to push the cow back. Further language was used. When he spoke to the men, one said that the account should he sent to the Mercantile Company if any damage had been done. . The Magistrate; What was their condition? If they were not drunk they were mad. Witness said the tall man used the language. He saw accused in the distance. Joseph Sim, of Highchft road, corroborated the evidence of the other witnesses, and said that he could hear the bad language of the men for a distance of 100 yards. Witness would not like to say they were drunk, but they had “ a few in,” and the defendant had a bottle in his hip pocket. Constable Harris, of North-east Valley, submitted a statement by Crawford, in which he stated that he had had only four drinks, while his companions had visited two or three hotels during the time of their driving the cattle from North-east Valley to Tomahawk. He denied using .bad language, or hearing his companions say anything objectionable. Accused, a drover, aged 21 years, affirmed that his statement to the police ivas correct. To Senior-sergeant Packer ; When the summons was served, he intended to plead guilty, as ho. was told that if he pleaded not guilty it would cost him a “ good few pounds.” The witnesses were mistaken in attributing the language to him. William Robert Bell, a farm labourer, said that the only time he was not with Crawford during the day was for a short period on the Highchff road, and he declared that Crawford had not used any bad language. “ The evidence before me establishes beyond doubt in my mind that filthy language whs used by both men on the Highcliff road,” said the magistrate (Mr Hi W. Bundle. S.M.). ** Ap* parently three ’ men set out to drive four cows. One went missing at one stage of the journey, and, from the description of what occurred, the marvel is that all the cows did not go astray. The men were in various hotels, and 1 am by no means satisfied that the evidence given by Bell and Crawford as to the amount of liquor taken .was correct. The evidence of all the witnesses shows that they were men who had lost, control of themselves and were not competent to ride the horses, let alone to drive cattle through the streets. They behaved in a most disorderly manner on the Highcliff road.” On the charge, of obscene language, His Worship had some hesitation in not imposing a term of imprisonment. On that charge, each would be fined ■£s and witnesses ■ expenses £l, with costs 28s against Crawford and 10s against M‘Donald. Default was fixed at seven days’ imprisonment. On the charge of disorderly conduct, both were convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within 12 months. They were allowed a month in which to pay the fine. Botli were warned that if they appeared again before the court they would receive no consideration. They could consider themselves fortunate that they were not sent to gaol.