HAWERA R.M. COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume IX, Issue 1812, 22 December 1887, Page 2

HAWERA R.M. COURT.

Wednesday, December 22. (Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.) James Currie, charged with tethering a horse in Victoria-street, pleaded guilty by letter, and was fined 5s and costa.

James Savage was charged with being drunk while in charge of a horse on Dec. sth.

Sergeant Anderson said that Mr. T. Bayly had reported that the accused had been seriously hurt. A telegram was also received from Norminby to tbe like effect.

George Moiv, sworn, proprietor of tbe El t ham Hotel, said he saw the accused in a drunken state on December sth, so much 60 that witness would not allow him to proceed on his horse. Accused could talk sensibly, but was not sober.

C. K. Stock, farmer on the Mountain road, affirmed he had seen accused on the evening in question. Accused had bad a fall from his horse. Bid »ot appear io he sober, but could not positively swear be was drunk, as he had been partially stunned by a fall when he was picked up. Constable Mclvor Raid that accompanied by Dr. Lightbourne he had searched the road for defendant Savage, because he was reported seriously hurt. Found accused m a draokea etaCe later on at Mbir's hotel. Accused was abusive and drunk when witness found him.

G. Moir, recalled, said he had not supplied defendant with more than one glass of beer after he had been brought back to the hotel. Defendant did not have a glass of beer with the constable in the bar before the constable had been in to see him, as defendant had alleged. A prohibition order was aßked for by the police against the accused on the ground that the defendant endangered the peace and happiness of his family by excessive drinking. Defendant wished such an order to be granted.

The Sergeant of Police said he had incurred an expenditure of £2 2s as a doctor's fee, for which he was personally responsible.

Defendant said there would never have been anything about the case if his girth had not broken and he been stunned by a fall. J In reply to the Bench, the Sergeant of Police said be had been refused payment by voucher of tbe doctor's bill. Defendant said he was willing to pay the doctor's fee. The Magistrate said he would be fined 20s and costs. Neither of the witnesses in the case claimed expenses. (The cost of mileage was remitted by the magistrate.) David Whiting was charged with allowing two horßes to wander on tbe Main South Road. Constable Tapp paid on the 14th he impounded two horses, early in the morning, which he found at large on the Main South Road. The Poundkeeper gave evidence as to the release of the horses by Mr. Whiting from fcbe poua3. Fined la without costs, except a share of the pound* keeper's expenses. Police v. W. J. Graham — Allowing a horse to stray on 14tb, fined Is and a share of the costs. Tbe same v. J. Dunn, — for a like offence, fined 5s and share of costs. The same v. Lucas, — for a smilar offence, fined 5s and costa 7a. W. Arnold v. E. Exley. — Application for sureties of the peace against E. Exley. E.'Erley v. W. Arnold.— Rescuing cattle. These two cases were heard together. Mr. Caplen for E. Exley. W. Arnold complainant, in the first case, charged E. Exley with making use of violent and provoking language. Witness said that his son was driving cows home when Exley took charge of four of complainant's cows. Complainant's boy had charge of two cows, and defendant had four of witness's cows in his possession, which had gone on in front of the boy. Witness did not attempt to rescue any of the cattle in Exley's possession, only tried to take from Exley the two cows, which were being driven by his boy. Sometimes sent his boy to herd the cows on the road. Tbe boy might have gone for the cows at 3 o'clock, or about that hour, The boy was in tbe habit of gathering fungus. Did not deny that ExJev ba.d been belabored by an aiehandle by witness's wife. Was not frightened of Exley, but feared nnless the annoyance caused by Exley were stopped worse would come of it. W. O. Slea, a lad in the employ of Arnold, was driving six cows up to milk on the 14th. E. Exley picked up four cowa which were in front on the puMic road, opposite Exley's. section. Witness ' was a little distance beh\nd with the ' other two cows. Exley used bad language j Did not give any reason why he took the four cow 3. When Arnold came up, Exley offered to fight Arnold, but let tbe cows go. Exley said he wanted 6s, driving fees for the four cows. Cross-examined by Mr. Caplen — Did not offer a kit of fungus to Exley to release the cowa. Witness said to Exley he feared be would get a thrashing if he did not take all the cows home. Did not offer to pay 6s out of his own pocket. None of the cows were out of his sight. E. Exley said Arnold was in the babit of grazing cattle on 'he road. They destroyed grass seed on the road in front of his section ; and Arnold was ranger, and impounded all cattle that he found on the road. The cattle had been an hour on the road before witness took charge of them. Did not remember using abusive language. W. Goldfinch, settler, saw Exley in charge of the four cows. Met the boy driving two others some distance on. J. A. Collett, in Exley's employ, saw Arnold's cattle eating Exley's cocksfoot about one o'clock in tbe day. About an hour later took charge of the cattle. Was quite clear that all the cattle were rescued by Arnold. It was an hour and a half from the time they first saw the cows until they took charge of them. No abußive language was used by Exley. The Magistrate said he was quite satisfied that the charge of using abusive language was not sustained against Exley. He was sorry to see such illfeeling between neighbors, but could not regard the charge as sustained by the evidence. As to the charge of rescuing 1 cattle, he held it had been proved ; the weight of evidence showed that defendant did rescue cattle, and took them out of the possession of Exley, This was a serious offence, and rendered defendant liable to a penalty not exceeding j£so. A ranger should have been the last person to rescue cattle on a public road and commit a breach of the peace. If a light fine were imposed in sach a case, it might fail to deter otherß from committing a similar offence. He did not wish to be too severe, but if such cases came before him again he should have to impose a heavy fine; bat in this instance he did not wish to pub on a fine that ttdu}6* be ruinous io a man m poor circumstances, as Arnold was said to be. He must allow a solicitor's fee of 21s ; tbe fine would be 40s, and costß £2 155. Time was allowed to pay the money.