POLICE COURT—Friday.

New Zealander, Volume XX, Issue 2080, 2 April 1864, Page 5

POLICE COURT— Friday.

[Before Thomas IiECK.ii.VM, Esq., K M.] , r The Sheep Inspector. —John Scarrot was charged on the ir.foniiation of F; G. Lewis, Inspector of Sheep, with having obstructed him in the execution 1 of his dutyon the 22nd of February! Mr. Wyiin appeared for the : prosecution.' He said the proceedings were taken under fhe 11 th clause of-the Sheep Act 1863, which enforced a penalty of £2O and not less tliair £5 ; and after having, /stated the grounds of complaint, remarked that the defendants conduct had been-'such that if Mr. Lewis had, given him a good horse whipping it would have served him right for he richly deserved it. Mr. Merriman, who» r d|feilded, said language like that .used .by his learned: friend called for the censure'of the Court. It was monstrous to use such language in a Court of justice.—The prosecutor, E.G. Lewis, unbeing sworn, saidl am,lnspector under the Sheep Act in-the Auckland district. On Tuesday the 22nd; .February, I: in company with Mr. Charles Shepherd, went into Mr. Scarrott’s paddock about two o’clock in the day. Mr. Scarfott came up as we were together. I told him 1 had come -as an Inspector of • Sheep to examine’the flock in his paddock, and I pointed, chit) to 0 Mr! Shepherd th at I had’ brought this young man as a witness. He wanted to know what power or authority I had to go on to his land to examine bis sheep. I told him I had power as Inspector under the Act, and be said he didn’t believe it. I asked whether his sheep were scabby—he ; said he didnit believe they were, but that if they were he was preparing .'staff togivedhein Another dip. I said if he would go with me, or send a man, I would inspect them before I left. He repeatedlymade use of the words “ I .object to your inspecting them.” I then said I had better go away. I then left

■ the premises with Mr. Shepherd. In less than five., - minutes I returned with Mr. ! Shepherd again towards Mr. Scarrot’s door, within about’five yards. Sir. Scar- ' rott then came out. I said to Kini “ Well, Mr.'Scarirott,--! " am going to inspect your sheep.” , He again said “ I object to your inspecting them.” I then said, “ Now, remember Mr. Scarrott, if you obstruct me in the execution of my duty; you.will be liable to a penalty, of £50.” I did not hear what he said, as I went on.. Mr; Shepherd and ! then, preceded to where the sheep were. About five minutes after Mr. Scarrott came . to the field. . He said, I believe, ‘I object to your inspecting them.” I said, I care not about your objections, I will inspect them, and I’ll ; show you the marks of scab fast enough. He said I do object to your inspecting them and drivingtbem away, and now order you off my land, and turning to Mr. Shepherd he said, I order you off too, It was said in an authoritative tone. I told him he was acting very foolishly; but as he ordered me off his land I would go. I thought from his language and conduct that it would have resulted in a breach of the peace if I haddnspected them. I did not inspect these sheep, because I belieye itwould have led to a quarrel. I do not believe I could have performed my duty as Inspector on that occasion. Cross-examined by Mr. Merriman: By a person quarrelling I mean a breach of the peace, not a quarrel in this Court. I do not think that he said he would have me up for trespass. I will swear I did not hear it. I went on to see the sheep with reference to a former case. I did not say I was going to rip open the old case. If he had admitted they were scabby there might have been nothing more-said about it. It referred to that moment, and nLjf to the former case. There was a good deal said. J don’t believe anything was said about any other flock. He did not tell me to go and inspect some neighbouring flocks. He threatened to do what he cduld as I had gone there, but nothing was said about trespass. Mr. Scarrott did tell me that he was preparing stuff to dip them again, .whether they were scabby or not. . I will swear positively that I did not allude to the old case. I did not say that was the reason I came , to inspect; the sheep. Mr. Shepherd was with me . i the whole of the time.— Charles Shepherd sworn,lisaid : I -reside at Manganui. I recollect accompanying Mr. Lewis,.. the; lnspector, of Sheep, to inspect Mr. Scarrott’s sheep. It was last Tuesday week, the 22ud. We saw Mr. Scarrott. Mr. Lewis told Mr. Scarrott he came there for the purpose of inspecting his sheep. Mr. Scarrott said he objected to it. Mr. Lewis went away for a short time. He came back again. I came with him. Mr. Lewis saw Mr, Scarrott again, and, said he would inspect them. Mr. Scarrott said he still objected. This was at Mr., Soarrott's house. '; There were some sheep in a paddock a few chains from the house. Mr. Lewis went towards them. Mr. Scarrott remained at his house. I saw Mr. Scarrott again, about five minutes after. Mr. Scarrott said,' “ I object to your inspecting my sheep, and order yoa off my land.” Mr. Lewis said he would sleave and not inspect the sheep, because he had been ordered off. This was all. Mr. Lewis said that he would not have'gone to inspect them if he had not brought forward evidence in a former case, which he was not prepared to refute. Mr. Lewis did not inspect the sheep. To Mr. Merriman : Mr. Lewis rode through ,the sheep. He said he would find something more than shear-marks on them. Repaid he went there for both purposes, to see the marks of old scab and scab, and alluded to }he old case in this Court. When he alluded to the old case he did not seem to be very well pleased. ’ I" do not remember Mr. Scarrott • saying he'would have him up for trespass. , He said that if he would ..admit. they had been . scabbed' be -would not inspect them.—j—Mr. Merriman, in defence, said it was unnecessary for him further to occupy , the time; of the Court after the evidence for the prosecution had been heard. It was very evident that Mr. Lewis had-been nettled at his defeat on a former; occasion, and had taken the present steps in consequence. He most confidently submitted to his Worship that he could do no other than dismiss the case.' < But whether that were' so' or not, no one who had heard the case, or who would read a report ’ of it, would come to. any other conclusion than that the prosecutor had been actuated by extra motives beyond those, of duty.' It would be seen that lie actually rode ' through the flock , of sheep; without producing his authority, and if was fair to say, from the evidence, that Mr. Lewis did not go out to inspect the sheep, buf to “ rip.open” the old: case. < His own witness distinctly ;stated;,,that one of his objects in going to Mr. Scarrotfs ■ was in -reference to the former case. He went there - for ■the-purpose of annoyance, hot in tile 5 execution of Jiis ! duty, as was clearly seen from the ; evidence of the last ■ •witness.- In what way, .lie, would, ask,,, had Mr. Scarrott* acted improperly.. There were present oulv ■ im-.T3caiwTO-mpposßnHsf*c'fri _iLa.” “ # his witness, and yet it, wag . argued that, Mr. Lewis was in fear of a bleach of the peace. Who was this Mr. Shepherd ? : What ' brought him there ? ' Was he appointed under the Act ?, He was taken there -, not as a bona 'fide. -Inspector of Sheep, i-'butf as:a witness of what might take place. Out of the .mouth of his own witness was'the prosecutor condemned. Ho (the learned' ; counsel) sincerely trusted his Worship -would not sanction Such an oppression of settlers in this •district as this case would appear , to disclose., , The cause was evidently a bit of . spleen on , the part of the prosecutor, or those who pulled the, springs, at-having -been beaten, on a : former occasion. If bis client'had •offended at all, he had been trapped into it.- —-His Worship in deliyering judgment saidlt did not iseem id be. denied on the.jpart:of defendant that be had iritar- . 4 rapted.plaintiff in the execution of' his duty. The gist of the defence appeared - to- be that it was ’a feeling of ■ 'pique,- from' 1 having been foiled; oiia’ previous occasion, ; 'which, induced plaintiff to go there. How did .the ease really stand ? , The/ormer case alluded to as having, been heard in that Court was dismissed,- .it might,, therefore • , be, the wish of the Inspector, 1 to again inspect those sheep,- : which he.’still believed to be diseased. ; - The-Court could - not but think that he,had a right so, to do. Whether lie . was- right in using the. expressions -attributed;to him was ;a different matter altogether. • No doubt ■ they, 1 in some measure, indicated- the animus by- which he was actuated. Oft,course, the law was never intended 1 to oppress : - : anyfone, orto he carried'oiitoppressively.;; There was nb - doubt that the.' J duties of, the Inspector were, of a, , most disagreeable . nature,; and if they were not properly ■ attended . to, how' was' it possible to. eradicate the - scab disease from the Province,, where there was no doubt -that-it existed ?, Where the Inspector was really contravened in the exeat ion of his duty, and where lio cause-was shown to the ; : contrary, a heavy penalty ought to be inflicted. ' Under the present- 'circumstance, - the Court'-would inflict the - - smallest pchalty, 1 that-was £s.' ;V, ’" : - -; “ ' ' "’Charge- op'Lakceny.—Te Riri appeared to answer to the charge of stealing; certain .articles ,in, Freeman's Bay. Mr. Puckey was instructed to tell him that, as the prosecutor could-not be found, he would not, be required io attend again. , , Charge of Larceny.—Thos. Keclen was again brought up on a chaige.of having stolen certain articles,' the - property of-ffolm , Leslie, -m Johnny ’ Billy,’ sworn, said,-: I am a labourer, residing in Chancery-lane. I know the prisoner and a woman called Mary "Ann Leslie. " I recollect ; the prisoner "and ' this , woman coming to my house after her husband went away to Waikato. 1 believe it was about the the beginning of March. I let a room in my house to the woman’s husbatul, previous to. this for himself and wife, lie left his things in the room with his wife, and went - up to the ■ front. She afterwards went out,- attd.-before night returned with the prisoner. ; He ■ stayed; in the, room; for a , fortnight; It was a room in which- they slept. There - - was only one bed. "Tknow, they slept together ;- about a; 1 fortnight after they went away. She hired a cart andtook the things away; -They were' taken away during ' my absence. I think there were five boxes. One of * them, 1 know, bad Leslie’s name on it—a new one. I don’t' know whether the’ rest had. r-Charles Clarke said : I am a constable in the, armed ■ police -It apprebended the prisoner in Mercury Bay on the-12th March.; He was living in a whare at .Mercury Bay withe the woman now in .Court,, called Mary Ann Leslie. ’ .He had the boots on now produced. They were identified by the, , -prosecutor as Lis .property. All the articles' now pro-; . duced were identified by the prosecutor as his,, property.They were all found in the house occupied by the* prisoner arid Mary Ann Leslie. On the prisoner being ‘ > asked.what, lie had to say, ..he -replied he wished to make" hisdefence, He then said : On the evening of the 16th February, Icameoiipass from Meremcre. I belong to; the Transport Corps. l arrivcd in Auckland on the evening of the 25th. I met’this woman now* in Court. 'ln a conversation with her, she brought me to M'Millan’s house. We then made an agreement that we were to live together as man and wife. I stopped at the housefor about a fortnight, I then went to work for Mr. Davis, Queen-street. - One day, as I was at my work, she removed the furniture to the house of person named ;M‘6inness. She told me in the morning to come to M‘Ginniss’s and take dinner. The furniture belonging to her was'there when' I came to ‘ dinner. Afner taking - dinner, I went off- to work; I two days from my work, looking for a House to live in. ‘ j went to a pablichouse, and him and I quarrelled, There

I was a man, a contractor, belonging to ;h.‘ saw mill I company of. Mercury Bay. A mau of the name of Frank asked me if I would go to work for Kim. ■ I was employed by him to go to Mercury Bay. On the Sunday morning Mary Ann gave me the keys of her box in the kitchen. The landlady and,several of the family were in the house at the time they were given to me. She gave me the keys, and told me to go down to M'Ginness’s ami bring her a change of clothing up, and a clean shirt for myself. I did so, Went to Mrs. M'Ginniss. I brought the clothes to her keySf anii;;gave them to her in the kitchen. We then went to a Mrs. Grant’s' boarding-house, arid changed our clothing, and then went back again to the public house known as the Black Bull. ' Mary Ann Leslie, 1 and a few of the men, were with me, and asked me to go up to Mctl i nil ess V arid "help : to remove somh : ol the. light things. Two of the men took a small box, each one taking a bag with some crockery ware. , I then, accompanied Mrs. Leslie to the ship called Tauranga, which my employer told the captain I was going on board. We went on boatd and slept on board. On arriving at Mercury Bay, sbe gave me a pair of boots, claimed by prosecutor, and I wore them until he identified them on my feet. The Court then adjourned for half-an-hour. Mary Ann Leslie was then called by prisoner. On being sworn, she said in reply to prisoner : I gave you the key to get my apparel, but no shirts. It was by my persuasion that you gave me your pay. On the Sunday! you removed a butter crock, some bedding, and a canvas bag belonging to Leslie. Some men were employed to take the things away, and you induced me to sell ray husband’s watch. I did not give you the large boots, but those now on your feet; the large ones you took out of the box yourself. It was after we left. Mercury Bay that you took my husband’s clothing.——-To the Court: I told him the first time I saw him I was a married woman ; I showed him ray marriage lines. I told him I was the wife of Leslie, read the lines to him, and showed him his likeness. His Worship pointed out the folly of prisoner continuing this course of cross-examination, inasmuch as it outy tended to criminate himself. Ho told prisoner that even if the wife gave him the boots, he was liable, to be convicted for receiving her husband’s goods. He was : an adulterer, who had seduced the woman from her husband, and her. giving him the goods would not help him one bit, for an adulterer could be prosecuted, though the goods were given to him. Prisoner had convicted himself, and he therefore stood committed for trial at the Supreme Court.-——The witnesses'were then bound over to prosecute. ; V k: -’ - 'y ” Drunkards. —James Young, John. MofHt, Andrew Cavariagh,. and James Kelly were fined 20s. each and costs, or 48 hours’ hard labour.