WANDERING STOCK.

Gisborne Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 10566, 20 April 1928, Page 3

WANDERING STOCK.

ORMOND 1 RESIDENTS FINED. RAILWAY DEPARTMENT l CRITICISED. \ln the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, Con. Neenau, charged with allowing his horse to trespass on the railway station yard at Ormond, and Mrs Lilly O’Rourkej wlio was similarly charged in respect to nine coins, appeared before Messrs, 11. M. Porter and J. F. Waclismann, J.’sP.

Mr. E. T. Brosnahan, who appeared for both defendants, admitted that the , stock in Mrs.. O’Reurleer's case were wandering, hut he said_ he intended pleading not guilt3’ in the meantime so. ns to have the whole* of the facts brought out. • t Sergeant Mclntyre said that stock straying about the station yard was a menace', and that owners, had been previously warned. Mr . Rrosnaiui ri said a portion lof the railway yards was leased to Mrs. O’Rourke, and this portion, which was within a few' feet of the rails, was fenced off. On the day in Question, a Sunday, a hoy was driving the cows into the fenced-off portion, hut in doing so, a few of the animals had strayed close to the line. Mrs. O’Rourke had a right to put the cow's on the railway property, but was not allowed to let them wander. The family concerned were in hard circumstances and counsel suggested that a conviction would suffice. The Bench held that although the Department luid contributed somewhat to the offence, it was for the owners of the stock to take every precaution. Under the circumstances defendant would he fined £l. with costs 15s. .In the case of the'other defendant, Con. Neenau, Mr. Brosnnhan said he would again formally plead not guilty, but would admit the horse was on tiie line, and later would plead guilty.

Giving evidence, the defendant. Neenan, stated he had left his horse •in a blind road, hut the animal had wandered away to the station yardsthrough an open gate. Any house which got on to the road could easily wander on to the railway line. Mr. Brosnalian then withdrew liis plea of not guilty, and entered one of guilty, saying that if the Department’s fence was taken down and stock wandered on the line, the owners of stock would he liable to prosecution. Counsel contended that it was unreasonable that the Department, which had not attended to tiff gate, should prosecute and ask for in he--'vy' penalty.

The Bench, in lining defendant 10s and costs, commented that it was tiff duty of the Department to have their gates in suitable order.