RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

North Otago Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 3970, 2 June 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

E STF T?,T)AY (Before H. W. Robinson, Esq., R.M.) BREACHES OP THE POLICE OFFENCES ACT.

Patrick Treahy was charged with allowing one cow to wander at large on a public road at Ngapara, and as Constable Strain stated that thiß was a second offence, his worship infl cted a fine of 53.

John Boyle for allowing a cow and calf to be at large on the district road Bear N»apara was also fined ss.

LABCENY.

Robert Cooper was charged with stealing, on the 9th May, a fowl valued at 2s 6d, the property of one Margaret Siu> monds, and with stealing on the same date a fowl valued at 2s, the property of Chaw. Kearna. To the first charge he pleaded not guilty j to the second, guilty. He was also charged with stealing a coat, valued at L 2, tbe property of one John Reid, at Totara, on the 15th May. To this he pleaded not guilty. After Inspector Thompson had stated the particulers of the casa be called John Reid, the prosecutor; Charles Kearns, Tees street, who had bought the coat from accused ; W. Lees, who had bought the coat from Kearns; Detective O'Brien j James Allan ; and Constable Joyce. Accused said he had no witnesses to call except a man named Guinness, and he did not know where tbe latter was now.

Another charge was preferred against the same accused for stealing a watch, va'ued at L 5, the property of Charles Kearns, at Oamaru, on the 16th May last.

As the amount was over L 5 his worship as<ed accused if he wished the case dealt with summarily, or to have it heard before a superior court, when, without any hesitation, accused replied, "Sum* '\ msrily." -*

After all the evidence had been heard, accused, when asked what he had to aiy in defence, stated that he had purohaaed the watch from a man named Yells about three weeks ago. He was in a peculiar position, inasmuch as he could not find the witnesses he required. In answer to his worship accused said he had not furnished their names to the police. His worship then said that he wished it to be understood that it was the duty of the police to assist any person charged with an offence to find any witness wanted by the accused person. Oa the charge of stealing the watch, prisoner wag committed to the Dunedin gaol for 6 months with hard labor ; for stealing tae coat, 3 months j for stealing one fowK 7 days ; for stealing the second fowl/ a similar penalty ; the sentences to be cumulative,

11/I/EGAL IMPOUNDING. W. Newlands was charged on the In* formation of David M. Fea with illegally impounding, on the 19th ult., a cow, the property of the latter.

Mr O'Mesigher appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hislop for the defendant.

Mr O'Meagher said the faots were very simple. Mr Newlands was a storekeeper at Mftheno, and Mr Fea was alto a storekeeper there. The plaintiffs cow had strayed on to the property of the defendant, but inch property was not fenced and if the cow entered a shed, tha property of Mr Newlands, the door mast .have baen open, and he held that tb« property wan not fenced within tha mtan*

Ing of the be», Mid the defendant had therefore no right to impound tho oow. David Miller Pea, the plaintiff, gave evidence to having received * notice from the defendant informing him that he had impounded his cow, and he (plaintiff) had writren to defendant staling that if the cow was not released, he would take proceedings against him for illegal impounding. There was a shed on dr. fend »nt'« property, th« door of which was often left open. The defendant fed bis cows on the open. He bad not releaaed the cow from the pound himself. He had sent his boy to do so. Crpsc-examlned : H« could not tell whether defendant's cows were fed on tho street or not. He did not milk the cow hira«elf, but It could not be away for any time without his noticing its absence. He had only had one complaint from a neighbor abont the cow trespassing. The cow did not frequently trespais on neighbors' land. He never had had complaints made about his horses trespassing. It was near the ahed that defendant fed his cows. The shed was on the open. He could not say whether it was on the street line or not.

Mr Hialop contended there was no csse. There was no proof that the cow had been impounded. The plaintiff stated that he had sent bis boy to release the cow, but there was no proof that the cow was in the pound. It was for (he plaintiff to prove his case and not for the defendant to do so for him. The plaintiff himself was not certain whether the shed was on the street or not, and there was no cvi denca before the court to show whether th'S cow was impounded off the street or from fenced-in land. His worship said there was nothing for him but to dismisa the complaint.