POLICE COURT.-Monday.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7772, 19 October 1886, Page 3

POLICE COURT.-Monday.

[Before Messrs. T. Peacock, E. Parsons, and J. New* man, J.P.'s.] Drunkenness.—Five men were fined 5a and costs for first appearances. John Murphy, Kate Hiuch, Benjamin Smith, and Mary Burtenshaw were each fined ' 10s and costs, or 48 hours in default.- Catherine Webber, who was/' unable to appear on a charge of being drunk and disorderly in Symonda'Street, was mulcted in a fine of £3 and costs, or a month's hard labour. Emily Diver for being an habitual drunkard, was sentenced to two months' bard labour. Larceny of a Blanket.—John Arnold was charged with stealing a blanket, valued at 21b 6d, the property of Hector Simon, at Waipu, on September 7. The accused was arrested upon a warrant issued at Whangarei, and a remand was applied for to that place, Remanded to Whangarei till Wednesday*

Fisticuffs. — Thomas J. Rodgers was charged with assaulting Francis Hirling by striking him on the face and knocking him down on October 18. Mr. Tylden appeared for the defendant, and pleaded guilty under extenuating circumstances. It seemed , fl the defendant had come out of the urinal at |a the Opera House, when he was rudely la accosted by the complainant, who demanded Q a match, and insisted upon being given one. Defendant then struck Hirling, who was a _ youth. Fined 10s and costs, or 48 hoars' 0 hard labour in default. Stealing Firewood.—Andrew Butler was j charged with stealing a rail, valued at Is, 0 the property of the New Zealand Govern--3 meat, on September 17. It seemed the accused took the rail on Sunday from the railway station at Newmarket. It was taken for firewood. The accused's father Q was in Court, and stated that the rail had j been given to his son by another boy. It , appeared there had been numerous comj plaints of similar larcenies. The Bench 1 administered a severe caution to the lad, and j ordered the accused's parent to find a surety e in £10 for his good behaviour for three r months. Alleged Perjury.—Joseph Reed was j charged with committing wilful and corrupt a perjury by applying to give evidence in a t certain judicial proceeding in the R.M. £ Court wherein Arthur Pittar was plaintiff J and Reed was defendant, on October 7. Mr* Q W. Difinan appeared for the prosecution, Q and by arrangement with counsel for the t defence, applied for a remand for a week. a Remanded till Monday, October 25. * Disturbance at a Funeral. —- Ellen j Molnerney pleaded guilty to being drunk 9 at Howiok on Sunday, and also to creating a r disturbance in the Roman Catholic cemetery } by using obscene language. Special Con. •table Gill gave evidenoe in regard to the j offence. It seemed that the defendant had j obtained liquor at the house of the mourners, ( and followed the obsequies to the cemetery. Fined 5s and costs. I [Before Messrs T. Peacock and J. Newman, J. P.'a] i Illtrbating a Hunting Horse,—Freder rick Yonge was summoned for a breach of the ■ Police Offences Aot by illtreating a horse with 9 sure, and striking the horse on the head with a ■ whip at Remuera, on September 18. Mr. . Harris appeared for the defendant, who i pleaded not guilty. Mr. W. Thome proseI outed, and related the circumstances of the r case, from which it seemed that on Septem- » ber 18, after the entire horse parade at t Greenlane, there was a run of the Pakuranga l Hunt Club, to enable members to qualify • their horses for the Hunt Club Races. The l hunter Ruahine was there, and the defendant 9 was requested by Mr. Donnelly to take the i horse out and follow the hounds gently, so 3 that the animal might be qualified. Instead b of riding the horse carefully Yonge had Very i cruelly illtreated the horse, and the animal's r flanks were covered with gore after the run, r There would be no denial that the spurring I was given, but some of the witnesses, ha j understood, would try to screen their friend. . Edward Prior Donnelly, knew the hunter > Ruahine, which was owned by his brother. ■ Lent the horse to defendant to ride and qualify the animal for the Pakuranga Blunt Club. 1 He was to ride him gently and very carefully, r On seeing him in the evening in the stable, ) the animal was then cruelly illtreated, and if i the defendant had been there a breach of I the peace would have occurred. The horse , was all out on each flank, and a cat over the head. The animal was so stiff that he i could not move in his box. On account of ' the bad treatment the horse had received, ; he had to be put out of all his engagements. In cross • examination the witness said i he did not instruct the defendant to punish i the horse if necessary, as he would stick i up at times. He had communicated with i the defendant's father, and done what > he could to prevent the case being called on, i on acoount of his respect for defendant's father. Major Walmsley, manager to the Stud Company, remembered Ruahine being at Green-lane, and at the time remarked to defendant that he had a right to be prosecuted for cruelty to animals, on account of the treatment be had given the horse. Edward Woolfield, Inspector of Abattoirs, saw the defendant riding a horse after the entire horse parade at Green-Lane. The horse had received very severe punishment, which, in his opinion as a huntsman, was more than necessary. There was blood on the flanks, and also on the defendant's breeches. The defendant was not riding the horse carefully. Ruahine had won a steeplechase at Napier. Thomas Belcher stated that he had about 50 years' experience of horses, and saw the defendant leading a horse after the Pakuranga Hunt Club run. It was then severely punished from spurs. He should not think it was the result of old soars or punishment. Thomas Whewell deposed to examining Ruahine after the hunt. David Munn, horse trainer, Epsom, said he gave the horse to the defendant to run carefully to the top of the Remuera road • and back again. The animal was very severely punished by defendant. There were no scars or marks of treatment received when oat on the previous Wednesday. Henry Edgecumbe, jockey to the last witness, said he rubbed the horse down on September 18. The "flanks were then like raw beef from spurring." It took about ten days for the horse to recover from the treatment. Witness rode the horse at the Onehunga races on Saturday. For the defence Mr. Harris stated that there was no denial of the treatment, but the animal required punish' ment for the way he stuck up at the fences. Under those circumstances he would ask to have the case dismissed. Joseph Chadwick, stock agent, deposed that he saw the defendant riding at the hunt on September 18. Witness was present with Munn when he remarked on Wednesday, September 15, that Mr. O'Rorke had been stuck up with Ruahine, and he (Munn) had to " make " him take the fence. Munn said ' at the time, "you know what these gentlemen riders are." When defendant was riding the horse, he refused jumps five or six times at different fences. Defendant was a good horseman, and rode at the fences as any other rider would. To the Benoh: On Wednesday, September 15, there were sweat marks and pricks from spurring on the animal. They appeared like boils on the ribs. The defendant was examined, and stated that he did not illtreat the horse with spurs. At the first drag, the horse refused, and in the second he was thrown into a blind ditch. In the final run the animal went over everything. He had never illtreated a horse more than he did on the Saturday in question. The defendant was cross-examined. Thomas Halstead, veterinary surgeon, deposed that he examined Ruahine on Saturday, after the races, and it was then in a state of foam, He saw the hunter on the day in question, and in his opinion the horse was not illtreated by the defendant. On Saturday last he was positive the horse was in a worse oondition than on the day in question. Witness was not at the hunt, and did not see the horse severely puniihed by the defendant. In cross-examination the witness stated that the horse was bleeding from the application of spurs. In falling from a horse a good rider could not prevent a number of spur marks from galling the horse's flanks. Owen Grey deposed to seeing the ' horse after the hunt was over. He was spurred, but not over spurred.- The horse did not present the appearance of raw flesh ! on the ribs. F. Clarridge said Mr. Yonge was considered a good rider. W. Peroival, master of the hounds, deposed to seeing the horse at the end of the run, and he was ' sweating a good deal, and also bleeding. He did not think the horse had been badly 1 treated, and had never seen the defendant 1 ill-treat a horse. Andrew Austen, stock- ' man, was at the hunt on September 18, and 1 I saw the horse after the hunt was over, and 1 he was not over-spurred. Thomas Brown, ' huntsman, saw the horse after the hunt, and 1 did not consider the horse ill-treated, and he was not a mass of raw flesh. T. McLaughlan, engineer, was present at the hunt, and did not see the horse ill-treated; and after the hunt he saw that the horse had been spurred but not over-spurred. This closed the case . for the defence. The Benoh was of opinion 1 that the horse was over-punished, and fined , the defendant 10s. j