TO-DAY'S COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXIX, Issue LXIX, 8 March 1915, Page 8

TO-DAY'S COURT.

(Before Mr Kenvick, S.M.)

YOUNG MAN'S LAPSE

Herbert Hodgson pleaded guilty to ' having on February 23, at Normanby, obtained from Stanley Osborne Johns the sum of £1 19s 6d, together with ' sundr.y articles, by means of a- valueless cheque. . j

Senior-Sergeant McNeely said that on February 23 accused, who had been knocking about Normanby drinking 1 heavily, obtained a blank cheque from a- hotelkeeper, filled it in for £2 10s, and then cashed it. He was sorry to say . that" there was a previous conviction | against accused in 1909. j Mr Welsh, speaking in mitigation, } said the accused came from a respected Eltham family, but unfortunately oc- ' ; casionally became a, victim to the drink j habit, and it was while he was drink- j ing that he committed the offence, j When accused left the drank alone he ', was a hard-working young man, and i an affectionate son. There was a conviction against Hodgson, but it happened a long way back. He Avould ask his . Worship to consider whether the care j accused would receive at home would I not have a better deterrent effect than any lengthened sentence could possibly have.

Accused's father said that when his boy remained at home he could not wish for a better worker or affectionate son. lii was -the love for drink which compelled him to leave home. Prohibition orders did not appear to have any effect.

The Magistrate: This is rather a difficult case to know how to deal with. To accused: Can't you make an effort to leave the drink alone?

The accused: I will try to

The Magistrate said that accused's record, with one other exception, was apparently very good, and one would have, thought that with his previous trouble accused would have had enough warning. He was going to inflict a fine upon accused instead of direct imprisonment, and he was taking this step because of the time between the two offences. If accused misbehaved himself again he would expect to receive a long term of imprisonment. Accused Avould be fined £10, and ordered to' refund £1 19s 6d, and to pay the expenses of witnesses, in default, one month's imprisonment with hard labor. Accused was allowed until Friday in which to pay the fine.

ALLEGED CRUELTY. Ralf Stanley Haybittle and Thomas Edgar Major were charged with having on February ■ 15th, at Mokoia, illtreated, abused, or tortured a bull. There was a second information against Major for another offence on February 17. Mr O'Dea appeared for Haybittle and Mr Sellar for Major. It was decided to take the case against Haybittle first, in which a plea of not guilty was entered;

Joseph Tidswell deposed that he was a farmer residing at Mokoia. He remembered Monday, February 15 last. On that day he was grubbing gorse next to Mr Haybittle's farm, and while working he heard whips cracking and dogs barking, and looking to see what was the matter, saw the defendant and Mr Major in the paddock try to get a bull out of it. Major was on horseback and Haybittle was on foot. The defendant had a gun, which he afterwards handed to Major. The defendant then got on the horse and tried to shift the bull, but was unsuccessful. Major walked around with a gun, and he subsequently fired at the bull when the bull cleared around the paddock. The defendant made after the bull, followed by Major with the gun. Ten minutes after witness again saw the bull coming towards the cowyards, followed by defendant and Major. The men were trying to get the bull out of the naddbck, and it charged them, so the" defendant fired at it. Witness again .saw the bull later on, when there was blood on its head. Witness also saw the defendant, who asked if he had any ball cartridge, so that he could finish the bull. Major objected to this, saying that the bull was his, and he was going to take it away. The two men went down to the bull again, when the defendant fired at the bull from a long range—about 25 yards. By the Magistrate: The defendant fired twice and Major once.

By Mr O'Dea: The beast was a dangerous animal and witness would not have gone near^ it without being armed with something. The shots, witness considered, were necessary. Witness referred to some previous difficulty that had been experienced in removing the bull from a paddock. Mr O'Dea submitted there was no case to answer.

The Magistrate said he did not think shooting at the bull should have been resorted to until other meajis had been tried to get it away. He did not think a shot gun was the proper arm to use in firing at a bull. In dismissing the charge he did so because defendant did not want to leave the bull after it had been fired at, but wanted to shoot it right out. , The information was dismissed.

The hearing was then proceeded against Major on the second information of February 17. Lancelot Goodger (Mr Sellar) was also charged with the same offence. Both cases were taken together. Pleas of not guilty were- entered in both cases.