LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6149, 2 August 1881, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

VOLICE COURT.— Monday.

[Beforo It. C. Barstow, Esq., R.M,] iLAKCExr. — James NVhittJe was charged with stealing two bags of oats, -worth 20s, tbe property of Fredk. Alson, from tho schooner Darcy Pratt. Mr. Cooper appeared for the defendant* He said Mr. Tardy wis about to ask for an adjournment till next day. In that case he would &sk for bail*, Bail was allowed to accused in his own recognizance of £10, and sureties to a like amount.

Another Cask.—William Knapp, on remand, was charged with stealing a coat, worth 255, the property of Andrew Heavy. Sir. Laishley appeared for the defendant, and usked that witnesses be ordered out of Court. Andrew Heavy deposed that accused came to hia shop on the 2Mb. of Juno to coll a ticket. Witness refusod to buy, and went down the street. He saw the accused then go up the steps, and on his return he missed one of the coats. He afterwards spoke to prisoner about it, and he said he would bring it back ■ that night.' Witness in the meantime had reported the matter to the police. He identified tho coat produced. Cross-examined: Witness left his daughter in charge of tho shop. Ho had on previous occasions released some coats from the pawn for Knapp. On this occasion he had neither a coat of Knapp a nor a ticket authorising him to release a coat of Knapp's from Eao's pawnshop in his possession. Ho did not on Mis* occasion in question send Knapp back to »ee what sort of temper hU daughter _ was in. They bad been quarrelling when Knapp went in first. Detective Brennan deposed that he found the coat in tho possession of a man named Eodwell. He charged accused with stealin? the coat. He denied taking it, or kiowing anything about it. Subsequently in the guard'room he said Mis 3 Heavey gave him the coat. Cross-examined: Hβ spoke about a pawn ticket, but witness did not recollect whether he said ho sold it to H«avey. Charles Rodwell deposed to buying the coat from the prisoner for 49. Witness had it repaired. He aftergaro it up to Constable Strathearn. He conslderedha g»v« full value for it in its then state. Elizabeth Heavey, daughter of the prosecutor, also gavo eridence. .She did not give Knapp the coat. She did not remember Knapp coming back tho second time after he left with her father. She was in the back premises. Mr. Laishley addressed th« Court. The Bench found the case proved, and sentenced the accused to 14 days' imprisonment with hard labour. SiiEEr Act. -Walter Paul was charged with n breach of the Sheep Act, by not having made reasonable exertions to clean 50 sheep, after having been ordored by the Inspector to do so. Mr. H.lWilllamson, Crown Prosecutor, appeared for tho Inspector. Tha pro locution was laid under the 23rd section of tho Act. Alex. Munro, Sheep Inspector for the Auckland subdivision, deposed that defendant had sheep at Mangere in that sub-division. Witness had, on the 19th of May, inspected the sheep, and finding scab, he gave an order to Mr. Paul to clean the sheep. Hβ went again on the Ist of June, and in his opinion they were not cured, and ho adrised tho defendant to dip tho sheep a second time. Mr. Paul said ho could please himself as to what steps he took. Witness inspected them on the 27th of July, and the scab was still there. Cross-examined : He told defendant at first that the case was a slight one, but he did not recollect telling him that ono dressing would be sufficient. He could not swear that he did not say so. He did not remember,.but had they got a really good dressing it'would have been sufficient. He never gave the defendant a second notice i? writing to dip the sheep. He was cross-examined at considerable length as to the quantity of dressing required, and as to the examinations which had been made by him, and the time which it would require to cure the scab. It was the day after tho sheep had bean dipped that ho ordered the second dipping. Mr. Lewis, Chief Inspector, deposed to visiting Mr. Paul's farm with last witness in July. They insptctad Mr. Paul's shoep and he saw scab. He had previously seen tho defendant in June and he promised faithfully to dip them again, as one. dip was not sufficient. Crossexamined : He made a mistake in saying it was last Saturday week he visited Mr. Piul's plac*. It was last Wednesday. Defendant said he thought the sheep were all right, but if the law compelled him to do so, ho would dip them again. Defendant then gavo.his own evidence. Ho stated that who: , . Mr. Hunro came and examined tho sheep, he raid one good dressing would be sufficient. He gave them that dressing. Next day, Mr. Munro examined them again and saw one sheep itchy, and laid it had not been sufficiently dressed, but wltnoss had dipped all tho shtep himself, and this one in particular. He pointed out that it was only tho curing of the disease that caused what was seen. He watched it for days, and found that it was cured. He thought they were carryIng out tho extreme letter of the law in his case, and told them if the law compelled him he would dip them again. He did dip tham again since Wednesday. Some of those sheep had been dipped three times. Cross-examined: Ho had not sent notice to the Inspector this last dipping. He did not think it was necessary. Hia Worship said he was bound to convict. The law said he was bonnd to satisfy the Inspector, but h» would inflict the lowest penalty the law allowed, a> he had dipped them again. Ho was fined 12a 6d and costs, £2 9s. , A Family Reosiox.— Mr. Party uald he had an application to make on behalf of Mrs. Hattaway, who was in Court.. - Some time ago Mrs. Hattaway laid an information against her husband, and a warrant was issued.: It was sent out to Otahuhu to be served, but Censtable Graham served it on the son instead of the -husband, so, of coune, when called in Court, the case had to be withdrawn. Mrs. Hattaway on Saturday last applied to hive the warrant executed. It would ihavn been sent out to-day with tho oubpoona, but Mrs. Hattaway had in the meantime gone home, and was kindly received by her husband, and she now asked the leave of the Court to withdraw tho proceedings. His Worship said under tho circumstances, the warrant and subpoenas not having betn executed and served, he would allow the case to be withdrawn, n» fees to be charged.