MANJOTOTO NOTES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20069, 8 April 1927, Page 6

MANJOTOTO NOTES.

(From O b Own Correspondent.) NASEBY, April 7. . Nascby cricketers paid a return visit to Oturelnm on Saturday last, and suffered defeat, the home team scoring 92, compared with Nascby s 64. ... Local bowlers lield a championship tournament on Saturday last in glorious weather. The green was lightly heavy and tricky, and generally play was not up to the standard usually seen in this annual event. The final winners were: D. Vaughan 1. H. Graham 2. A doubles tournament will be played on Saturday, and this will in all probability be the last match of the season. The lady bowlers completed a doubles and singles championship tournament last week In the doubles Mrs Kirby and Mrs R. Tait proved the winners. In the singles some close play was seen, and the last rounds were of a very high order. Mrs Vaughan proved the winner or the first prize, ami Mrs Lloyd was a close SC At''the Nascby Magistrate's Court, before Mr H. .1. Dixon. S.M., John Con,,,gham of I’atcaroa Hotel, was fined f o and costs for having licensed premises onon after hours. Constable Bandy, who prosecuted. stated that on the occasion ot the I’atcaroa dog trials (March 2a) he visited the premises at 10.30 p.m., and found several persons in a temporary bar. iir J I. Fraser, who appeared tor the defendant, stated that some temporary boarders, under the impression that they could do so, invited some friends in to have a drink iust as the constable arrived. The police stated that the premises had alwavs been well conducted and that defendants lease expired next month. It was certainlv a special occasion, and tliev did not think it deserved endorsement ot the license. Four other men were cadi fined 40s and costs for being on the premises after hours. , John Wilkinson, of St. Bathans, was charged with procuring liquor during the currency of a prohibition order, and also with being on licensed premises whilst a prohibited person. Defendant was tmecl 2Os anti costs on the first charge and iva, convicted and ordered to pay costs on tlie second charge. , \ case of local interest was hoard when F.* J. Here ar.d the Nascby Commonage Committee were jointly sued for the payment of the balance of the pound fees incurred for impounding a bull which was sold as unclaimed. Mr J. I. hraser appeared for the poundkeeper. and in opening the case slated that the Maniototo County Council had to maintain the pound and pay the poundkeeper. It was alleged that F J. Horn was the owner and that the animal had been previously impounded wben Iho Commonage Committee hail an arrangement to take, the bull for use on the Commonage on the payment of the pound f,„„. 71iis miis in October, 1924. The bull bad beep a constant nuisance wandering around the district at large, Tim Countv Council had recently received inquests' from the New Zealand Counties Association and New Zealand Motor Union? regarding straying cattle on the roads that efforts should' be made to prevent the nuisance in the interests of the safety of (be pub’ie, Freouent warn : >urs had been given. It wn= alleged thof TTore had been spoken to bv (he poundkeeper and rl=o by th-i borough foreman, and bad said tbn 1 - if the animal were p"<- in a yard he would rorne a-’d shoot it. When (he bull was impounded (here appeared (o be a general ih.Jrc on (lie part of everyone to disclaim ownership. On one occasion a car bad run into the hull and was badly damaged, and wh“n approached by (he owner Ilore said he had better see (he poundkeeper, who had arranged to sell it.

The defendant, in evidence, said that the bull was not his. The earmark was not his, and the only black bull that ho had owned he had lost four or five years ago. He denied making any arrangement with the ponndkeepor, but admitted saying that if tho bull were his he would sell it for what ho could get and would take 10?. Ha would not admit seeing the bull, hut ho had been told that it was his. Francis Field, secretary of the Commonage Committee, disputed any arrangement with the ponndkeepor to release the hull in 1924. This arrangement was regarding an other bull. He admitted paying, he thougnt, 12s, tho fees due, hut ho did not sign the ponndbook. lie admitted receiving a receipt. Cross-examined, ho admitted that if ho paid for it on behalf of tho Commonage Committee it should be shown in the books, but ho was doubtful about tho hooks. He denied that tho Commonage Committee had agreed to release the two hulls, but. ho did not know if it would bo in the minutes of any meeting. There had boon no meeting of the committee for a long time. Only about seven cows had been paid for on the Commonage this year. The caso was adjourned pending the production of the Commonage Committee s books. In a second case of similar circumstances against W. D. Here and the Commonage Committee. Horo stated that the bull which ho was alleged to own was not his. He had had a similar one, and admitted that ho had agreed with the Commonage Committee to release it on the pavment of tho fees incurred in Oe toher, 1924. This animal, however, had been subsequently sold. The pounclkeepor, in evidence, said, however, that tho one now in question was not the one sold. Hore, however, maintained that he had sold the former bull and had no other ho gave bis evidence from tho body of tho court, and not in the box. Plaintiff was noii-?«iled in this case, Hore being allowed 15s expenses and Field 5s ex-