STRAY COWS CAUSE TROUBLE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 15167, 5 December 1912, Page 5

STRAY COWS CAUSE TROUBLE.

A MOUNT ALBBBT DISPUTE. > i, „ Tub depredations of some wande?in<j cows led to litigation at tho Police Court ''yesterday before Mr. E. 0. Cutton, S.M\ Dr. C. B. Roesiter. of Mount Albert, charged Thomas Stewart, a, dairyman residing in tho same district, -with trespass and assault, and also with resisting the impounding of the straying cattle. Mr. B. H. VVyman appeared" for complainant, and Mr. J. Moody for defendant. The ease for tho complainant was that at about two a.m. on October 28 ten cows belonging to the defendant, which were wandering, large in the road, broke into the doctor's paddocks. Complainant went out and shut the gates so as to keep the cattle in with the idea of subsequently impounding them. Defendant came along arid demanded his cattle, but, as ho refused to pay the impounding fee demanded of him, complainant declined to let him have the cows. Defendant then, it was alleged, set his dog on the cattle, which in their stampede damaged the ground and several fruit trees. It was further alleged that defendant, in spite of frequent warnings, flourished a whip and forcibly entered complainant's property, driving off his cattle. George Charles Best, stationmaster at Mount Albert, who said that he was asked by defendant to help him to collect his cattle, testified to defendant having committed the alleged offence. For the defence Mi. Moody stated that defendant offered complainant 10s, being Is for each cow, the regulation impounding fee. Complainant refused this and domnnded £1. Defendant thereupon suggested that the cattle should bo placed in tho public pound and he would "pay the poundkeeper. Defendant went away to give complainant a chance of doing "this. When he returned complainant had not taken the cows to the pound, and as it was necessary that they should be milked, defendant, although perhaps indiscreetly, took the cows by force. The magistrate found defendant guilty of resisting impounding, which, he jwinted out, was a serious offence, and convicted him on that count. This conviction, Mr. Cutten added, would cover the other charges. Defendant was fined £1, and was ordered to pay £5 15s costs.