Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

NAPIER MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

| XO LIGHT, I Paur Kuropu, a native, was fined 1 :>o-. and costs 10-. for riding a ibicycie wij.in the borough without j a light. | PEACH STEALING.

Harry Drtuy met trouble through Lis taste for ripe peaches. Accused was employed working as a plasterer on a contract let by Mr. McFarlane. A box of luscious peaches left open tempted him. and he popped a few pounds weight into a bag. Mr. Dolan, for the accused, pleaded that the matter was very t rivial and hardly worth Mr. McFarlane’s attention—certainly not worth bringing a man up on a criminal charge. Flis Worship remarked that accused had apparently forgotten that he had grown up, but there was no excuse for taking property that did not belong to him. Fined 2n -. and costs of peaches 6/-; in default. 14 days. BREACH OF RABBIT ACT.

E. J. Hughes was charged with failing to keep down rabbits upon his property. Mr. Camford appeared for the Rabbit Board, and Mr. Humphreys for accused.

Mr. Carnford pointed out the numerous inspections of the property had revealed rabbits on the increase, and no efforts being made to keep them down. Mr. Humphreys, for the defence, brought evidence to show that defendant Hughes was only a part owner of the property, did not reside upon it, and had received no notice from the Department. A son of defendant stated he had purchased poison, and it had been laid in the places directed by the Inspector.

At tins stage, failing the preseme of the men who had actually laid the poison, the case was adjourned for one week. LATHER'S CLAIM FOR MAIN T ENANCE.

This was a case in which Isaac Kent proceeded against four sons for maintenance.

j Mr. Lusk, for the defendants, ex (plained that difficulties had arisen in getting evidence taken, and asked for an adjournment. Mr. Cresswell, for the plaintiff pointed out that delay after delay had occurred, and the old man was destitute. He could nov continue to live under present conditions. Ample time had been given the de fence.

His Worship granted an adjournment, provided £5 was paid into Court without prejudice, and 40 - solicitors’ fees.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HBTRIB19110116.2.51

Bibliographic details

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 28, 16 January 1911, Page 8

Word Count
365

NAPIER MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 28, 16 January 1911, Page 8

NAPIER MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 28, 16 January 1911, Page 8

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert