NAPIER MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 89, 28 March 1911, Page 11

NAPIER MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

MONDAY, MARCH 27th. (Before Mr. S. E. McCarthy, S.M. MARTHA TAINUI’S LAPSES. Continuing the hearing of the charges against Martha Tainui: — j ! Kuropo Tareha, farmer, Wai- ■, l „ hiki, cousin oi the late Mrs. ■ Donnelly, said accused was no relative of Mrs. Donnelly. He had never seen her before. Accused said she had been drink- , ing, and under the drink she did ’ foolish things. She had good intentions of going to her uncle at Taupo. She had got the goods without any intention to defraud. ' She went to Palmerston to get her luggage, and found it had gone to Auckland. She called at Taihape, and was arrested there for false pretences. The case was withdrawn, but that was why she could not get back to pay for the goods. She would pay for the goods if given opportunity. Ever since Sir ! Robert Stout let her out (she was !an habitual criminal) she had been! idogged by’the police. She had! been in trouble always. The drink j I was the cause of all her trouble, j ‘lt was only through drink she did j

these foolish things. Convicted and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment in Wellington gaol, afterwards to be sent to the reformatory prison at New Plymouth. . THEFT OF A RIFLE. Ned Hedley was charged with the theft of one repeating rifle, the .property of George Bee, Puterina | station. Mr. Dolan, for the accused, I pleaded guilty. He said that the i rifle had been lent to Hedley, who brought it on to Napier, and after getting on the spree, pawned it for 1 15/-. He urged that, notwithstand- ' ing a previous conviction, a chance should be given accused. Inspector Dwyer said the rifle was not lent; it was a clear case of theft. Accused was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence when called upon; 20/- to be paid the second-hand dealer, and a prohibition order to be issued to-apply to Hawke’s Bay and Waipawa.

PROCURING LIQUOR. John Young was charged with drunkenness and procuring liquor during the currency of a prohibition order against him. Accused pleaded guilty, and was fined 40/and costs 7/-, time being given to pay the amount. A FIGHT. George Johnson and A. W. Lester were charged with fighting in the street, and having pleaded guilty, were fined 20/- and costs 14/- each. A RABBIT CASE. William Farrelly was charged with failing to destroy rabbits. Mr. Cornford appeared for the Crown, and Mr. Dolan for the'accused, who pleaded not guilty. Chief Inspector Amyes gave evidence as to the condition of the property, and the steps that had been taken to cope with the pest. So far as he could see, nothing had been done on the land since the previous conviction on J anuary 16th. The board had spent £230 to £260 per annum on the district, land when the board gave up the ! work the place was very fair, but j had gone back very’ much, and it i would take nearly as much to get j the place clear again.

To Mr. Dolan: The board had not formally authorised the proceedings, and the < Inspector of

Stock had not been asked to permit the prosecution. He did not know at the time of swearing the information that Farrelly had applied to the Land Board to surrender his lease. Inspectors Scott and Sutherland gave corroborative evidence. Mr. Dolan put the accused, William Farrelly, in the box. Aymes had told him it would cost £B5 per month payable in advance. asked for concessions, but none were allowed. He then got men, but they got drunk and would not go out, so he surrendered his lease to the Land Board. On the night of March 9th he was reading the report of the board meeting when the summons was served on himMr. Dolan first submitted thatthe offence was not proved; secondly, the area in the information was not proved to be under the the Rabbit Board; thirdly, thaMhe information should have been laid by the Inspector of Stock; and fourthly, if Mr. Aymes > was qualified, his appointment as inspector was not proved'or admitted. Mr. Cornford pointed out that the previous conviction stood as proof that Mr. Dolan’s contentions were wrong. His Worship decided to inflict a penalty of £5 and costs, 7/-, solicitor’s fee 42/-. ' The Court then rose, the magistrate taking a maintenance case in his room.