BY-LAW CASES

Marlborough Express, Volume LIV, Issue 183, 4 August 1920, Page 3

BY-LAW CASES

OATPLE - WANDERING

Tlu-eo defended by-law cases were hoard at fcha Magistrate's C'buro j-estei-day morning, uefore Mr P L Hollings, S.M. Mont© "William James Neal was charged, on the information of James Biildiek, with allowing foiu- draught horses to wander at huge at 'lna Alarina. Mr A. E. If. Scantlebnry appcaj-ed for tho defendant, and 3.1 r \Y. T. Chuohwai'd for Baldick. The defendant jilcaded guilty, but ■Sir Scantlebury said that perhaps JHis Woi-ship would hear the evidence, .it was not altogether a plea ot guilty. Mr Churchward aaid that if the defendant was found guilty he would not press'for a sevtre penalty, but ior more than a nominal penalty, us the Pictor. l?oad Board wished to give the matter publicity on account, of the greatly increased traffic on the road. James Baldick detailed finding the forses on th<i i-oad without anyone m charge. He drove the horses back to Neal's and was paid the mile^age. He got £6 a. year and all fee's., but. no fines were paid to him. The defendant stated that on tire? day before someone left his gate open and the hor;-:es got out. Whon Baldiek was paid the- mileage fee the witness thought that thy matter was at an end. He did not think that a. summons was warranted. It was finite an accidental occmiTence tliab the horses got out, and when Ji© found tliey Avere out he sent his driver to fetch them in. The driver got two of them, but before tire witness could go for th-s others Baklick I'Tought +hem in. 8 , Mr Churohwa.rd said thnt under the. .amended Act notwithfttandiii"that the fees were paid the de-* iendant was still Jia.ble for prosecuiion.

His Worsliin said that the liighwav must \fc kept cloair of stock. It was the businoss of omici's to 5.20 that this was done. The present case wsi.s not one of deliberate action on the defendant's part. A fin-e of £4 si ml costs (7s) would he iinpo.sed, and witnesses's expenses (los ."-)d).

ALLF.GED UESCUE

William Morgan answered a chare© made by .Jnmes Haldiek that lie did m-:eue. IS liead of cattle that were, seized lor the purpose of "being impounded on the 'White's Bay road. Baldick was represented !>y Mr W. T. Churchward, and the defendant by Mi- T. F. Celling. The defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr Churchward said that the facts were that L'aldick found the cattle ami was driving them to the pound. -V/o7'gan met, him and headed off tho cattle and took charge of them, refusing to T>ay the drivin<r foes.' He also offered to fight the ranker. ■ James Haldick <cave evidence in support of C'cnnsel's ope.ninjr statejnent. He said that the defendant Avail ted to fight him, ;;nd throw f-tones at him. ]{ c arrested the cattle and took them home. He did not n.«k the defendant to s/et into tho witness k cart. The defendant said that no had three days' grace but' tho witness told him to pay the fees and he could take the cattle, and t .en he could make his complaint to the board or tho Court. The defendant no/er offered the witnr,-,s the i'vo Jle was trying to provoke a, hre.n-h of the peace. The witness did not drive the defendant along the road jho tlnlendiiJit prevented the witness from taku.fr charge of the cattle by m-nig a volley of stones at tho witness

4 and his son. The witness had dnvAi the cattle over a mile when the de- ( fondant came along. He told Mrs Morgan that she could take the cows 1 if she paid the fee, and she said that , he could take them to the pound and ho would have to pay for it. Hs said ' nothing more to Mrs Morgan. Norman Baldick corroborated his father's evidence. 1 Mr Rolling said that the defendant j had permission to have his cattle on the road. Ills Worship said that no authority had the power to allow cattle to be grazed on the roads. The roads were for the benefit of the public, and could not be closed for an individual " Mr Rolling quoted from "the Consolidated Statutes of 1908. Tmpoundi ing Act, page 727, section 17, subf section 4b. in support of hi? contenk tion, which provided that the sane-' [ tion of the local authority could be } obtained. His Worship said that local authority did not mean one individual mem- ) her of a. local authority. The authork ity would first have to close the road V.y Order-in-Council. How could a > local authority tsko away" from the > public the rights of a road to give it to any individual without the I authority of Parliament? Mr Helling said that it was very frequently done. He w-is not prepai;----i rd to arguo that it was right or ■ vrong. The road ill question was 1 seldom used. The defence, however, i 'was that his client did not rescue the cattle. His property was under 1 water and he had been given authority to graze the cattle on the road. The defendant left the cattle on the | road, and Ealdick was not prevented from taking them to the pound. It was some hours after they had been left on the road by Baldick that the defendant put them into the paddock. The defendant went into the box, and stated that several members of the board had told him that,when his land was under water he could graze his cattle on that road. »It was only when his land was under water that j the cattle were allowed on-to .the road. He asked Baldick to go with him to the chairman of the board and ask him if permission was not granted. Ealdick kicked him out of the cart after driving him a few chains. The witness left the cattle on the road after Baldick left them for an hour and a, half. The witness went down to the house of the chairman of the board. Ke never offered to fight the ranger. The ranger at first offered to go to. Mr Stace's with him. The witness offered to pay the fee if the ranger would wait till he went j for it. Later Mr Staco lent him a"j piddock and he drove the cattle i there. His dog ran round the cattle, but he whistled hhn off. He did not «-nd the dog after the cows. He threw stones at the trap after being Kicked out. The trap was about 200 yards away then. He was absolutely sure that he did not mention fight to Baldick. As soon as the witness v.-as kicked out of the trap Baldick drove off. The cattle were about; six chains behind him then. Annie Bertha Morgan si id :ihat Baldick did not offer the cattle to her if she paid the fee. She noticed' tliat her husband walked lame when he re- • turned from seeing Baldick. Harold Botha m said he saw Baldick and Morgan driving along sthe road if tho cart. The cart stopped and Morgan went to txet out. Baldick then kicked him. and he fell out on to the road. The cattle were then back along the road. Morgan picked up some stones and threw them a.t the trap. He could not say if any of tho stones went into the tr.»p. Morgan Jeft the cattle where they were. Tho tail-board of the trap was r>roduced with a dent showing where Balcuck said the stone, had hit. His Worshio said if a stone thrown from 200 yards distance made a dent like that, it must have been a very ■ big stone. Mr Relliug endeavored to point out that, the dent was older Than the paint on the board. After hearing Counsel His Worship said that he was inclined to helievo. Baldick that he was prevented from driving the cattle to the pound. ■ Evidently the defendant was under the impression that he had a right to graze, his cattle on the road and he would take that into consideration. The defendant would be fined £5 and costs (7s) and solicitor's fee (£1 Is), with witness's expenses (15a 3d). THE GIRL AND THE COWS. John Carter was charged, also on the information of James' Baldick, with allowing five cows and one bull to wander on the Maori Pa road. Mr T. F. Celling defended for Carter and Mi- W. T. Churchward appeared on behalf of Baldick. The prosecutor's statement was that the cows were grazing- on the road, with a girl in charge/ She was sitting under a tree reading a book., Mie was not driving the cattle. For the prosecution Mrs Baldick gave evidence. The- defence was that the cattle were being driven along the road by the- daughter to a paddock. She lisually took about twenty minutes en the job and on the .occasion under re-

view she had not taken any longe than, usual. The daughter, Mary Carter, sail that she had driven the cat tie slovh along the road. There were foui ecus and a bull. She was not sitting, down reading a book, but drove then slowly along to the -paddock as sh< was told to do. The vows grazed on the way along,'but she did not stbr and let them graze. She had a book to read and looked at the pictures assho walked along. She took about 20 minutes or a quarter of an hour to drive the cows, to the paddock. His Worship said that there va.s considerable doubt. It had not bctu shown that the cows were allowed to stop any unreasonable time on the highway. The case would be dismissed.