HASTINGS MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XI, Issue 200, 17 August 1921, Page 5

HASTINGS MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr. B. W. Dyer, S.M.) Drunkenness.—John Nuson pleaded guilty to charges of drunkenness ana breach of his prohibition order. He was convicted, and on the charge oi drunkenness he was fined £3, or 14 davs’ imprisonment, and on the second count he was fined £2. iu default a month, Sentences to be concurrent. Railway Trespass.—Patrick William Sullivan was charged witli trespassing on the railway line at Hastings, by crossing the line in the station yards, in spite of being warned. Defendant said that he was a stranger to Hastings, and was not aware that he was doing wrong. Defendant was fined £1 and 11/- costs. BUYING BEER AFTER HOURS. S. Moore, licensee of Stortford Lodge Moore, licensee of the Stortford Lodge Hotel, was charged, on last Friday night, with selling liquor to Horace Cornish, during prohibited hours. Defendant pleaded guilty. Sergeant H gan, in stating the case, said that when he entered the house he saw Cornish with two bottles of beer in front of him. He denied having got them at first, but subsequently admitted having done so. but said he had not paid for them. Defendant was quite frank about the matter, and sai that he had supplied Cornish, who ha< paid for the beer. Mr. O’Dowd, for the defence, pleaded that Cornish had been very persistent, and in order to get rid of nim defendant supplied the beer. His client had been ill. and he wanted to get Cornish out. In reply to the Bench, Sergeant Hogan said that thpolice report regarding the hotel wasj favourable. Defend? it was fined £i)\ and costs 7/-. Horace Cornish, taxi driver, pleaded guilty to being on the premises of the Stortford Lodge Hotel on Friday night last, during prohibited hours. Mr. Duff, for defendant, said that his client got a ring to attend at Stortford Lodge to pick up a passenger, but he found no passenger there. He went into the hotel and asked the publican if there was a passenger waiting for him, and he replied that he knew nothing about a passenger, saying that he (defendant) was the second person who bad come in on the same errand. Cornish felt himself the victim of a practical joke. He did not go to Stortford Lodge to get drink, and he was legitimately on the premises. Three other taxi drivers had been similarly treated Sergeant Hogan said that Mr. Duff had been entirely misinformed. Defendant walked in and asked for beer. He called Mr. Moore, the licensee. Stanley Moore deposed that he. was not in the bar when Cornish, called. He denied that Cornish told him that he had been rung up by a passenger, or that a hoax had been perpetrated o him. All he did was to ask for beer, and he asked three times bqfore he got it. He paid for it. Cornish came to witness afterwards and asked to b refunded his money. On Monday he came again to see witness, and spoke to him as to what witness and himself should say at the hearing of the case, pointing out that if they agreed on - statement they would get off. Sergt. Hogan: Did he say anything about me ? Witness: Yes: he said that he wouU “put it across Hogan.” In reply to Mr. Duff witness said that another man had told him he haf received a call, but he did not say tc Cornish. “You’re the second man win came in here who said that.” Horace Cornish, in his evidence, said he saw another taxi driver coming out of the hotel when he arrived, and h< said. “You are on the same business as I am.” He w’ent into the hotel and saw Moore at the bar; asked * who rang for a ear. and he said he did not know, and that witness was second man to inquire.. Witness asked if there was any chance of getting bottle of beer, and Moore said “Yes,’ and gave him two bottles, and he paia for them. He did not pester Moore for the liquor. His Worship .-aid that he believed what Moore said, and he did not believe what Cornish said. Cornish had behaved very badly, and hacl suggested the concoction of a cock-and-bull story in order to get out of the charge, and he must get that idea out of his head. He was not dealing with children. He would inflict the maximum fine allowed by the Act, and if he could make the, fine heavier he would do so. He would fine defendant £2 and costs 7/-. and v he name before him again he would deal with him as severely as he could. 32 UNSHELTERED SHEEP DOGS. Arnold Dane was charged on information of Mr. C. W. Davis, inspector for the Society of Cruelty to Animals, with leaving his sheep dogs out at night, in a plantation, without proper shelter. Defendant pleaded guilty. Mr. Scannell, tor the prosecution, said the Society were not pressing for a severe penalty and they only wanted to impress owners that their dogs must receive proper treatment. The dogs were in good condition. Defendant was fined £1 and costs £2 Bs. Ernest William Murton was charged with, on July 21st, failing to provide proper shelter for a sheep dog. Mr. Scannell appeared for the prosecution and Mr. O’Dowd for the defence. At the request of Mr. O’Dowd, His Worship inspected the dog. Mr. Scannell said the dog had been kept in a inacracarpa single line of trees at Paki Paki, exposed to the recent severe mid-winter weather. Information could be laid in seven cases, hut the society only wished to show that they were going to prosecute in such cases. The dogs were in better condition to-day than they were when Mr. Davis saw them. Dogs could be very quickly fattened. He understood that steps were now taken to house the dogs properly and that, m itself, was an admission that kad not been kept properly, v. n. Dans, m his evidence, said that a dog could be fattened in three feeds »„ e i ti “ 1°?. g ex P erien «> of sheep dogs was not sufficient. To d : D ° es " ho "orked on the loads in exposure, would not be adwlTen ’n by fe in e kennelled when not working. During this winter there was little rain but there had sawthTdo 01 ’ 3 ! 1 ! 5 ' CO,<J nights ' When 1,0 saw the dogs they were n fairly good Z an D „„ Mr ' l O ’ Do '' d said that Hiis "as an unusual case. Drovers’ dons worked on the roads in all weathers noia that if this class of dog was housed, when off the road, except in roft 0 a r n7 ry «? dweatber . them soft and unfit tor work on the road? wXrs • V D^f° Ui l eXP ° SOd t 0 »» to look 'after Sog^a,^ S ho C0 ™ P B etent hin and they had been them to thTmXX e ?pa e t't B ± d ti r 3 judged that that after? d °i es ’ to P revent them suffering afteiwards on the road in cold weather 8 When wet and the weather was vX; cold the dogs were kept in a sheJ h ® conditions warranted it. If an The robd with his dogs 250 davs out of if it was every drover would-be liable’ Sheep dogs were not like house dogs' They were employed outdoors and it was no more necessary to house them than it was a horse or a cow. Defendant was jealous of the treatment oi stock and he had complained of the overcrowding at Unglands yards. The present winter had been a very dry one. Samuel Mcßqrnie George Elliott and Alfred Symes and J. Kingston gave evidence concerning the statements that the dogs had not her" ill-used. Some station managers would

not supply kennels. If sheltered, half this class of dogs would die when on the roads. Dogs perspired by means of the nose and tongue and not through the body. Unless a dog was tied up a kennel, he wofild-not stay there. Defendant was a first-class drover, oth in his work and as regarded tho condition of his dogs. Dogs that received too much care bad to be got rid of. His Worship said tho facts had not been denied and it was a question of whether shelter under trees was sufficient protection for dogs in July. When on the road the weather had to be taken as it came and it was the same for horses and dogs, while the men had not the shelter they were accustomed to in theii homes, so, in those conditions, it would be unreasonable to say the shelter provided was not sufficient. A dog, when off the chain, could find shelter for himself but a dog tied to a tree could only go tho length of his chain. It seemed to him that, in winter, the trunk of a tree was not proper shelter and. although it was dry. it had been cold at times this winter. "When tho dogs were at home, it was not fair treatment to tie the dogs to trees in winter time. Defendant, ho was satisfied, fed his dogs well and understood them. Defendant was fined £1 and costs £2 16s 6d.