PATEA S.M. COURT

Patea Mail, 24 November 1939, Page 2

PATEA S.M. COURT

ORDINARY SITTING The ordinary monthly sitting of the Patea K.M. Court was held on Wednesday,' before -dr. .1. 11. Salmon, S.M. WELCOME TO .MAGISTRATE Before the commencement of the proceedings His Worship the (Mayor, Mr. E. E. Hemingway, who was present, said be would like, on behalf of his fellow Justices and of the Citizens, to tender a hearty welcome hade to His Worship after his recoin holiday, and expressed the hope that lie would be wit.'a' them for a long time yet. Mr. P. W. Hamel, on behalf of the legal, fraternity, endorsed His Worship’s remarks, and stated that he need hardly say that ho and his colleagues as in the past, would be only too pleased to render the Bench any assistnnc*,- in their power. His Worship said he appreciated the kind remarks of the Mayor and Mr. Hamel, very much, and he was happy to be with them once again.

CIVIL- CAKES Judgment by default was given .in the .following cases. —• J. Bates v F. Tanner, claim for £3/3/-. lv. A. Adams and Sons v Gordon, claim for f2/.1(5/5. E. Aagaard v J. Chard jnr, claim for £2/3/9. IA. E. Goad v H. F. Cox, claim for £ls. A. H. Langslow v E. Kirk, claim for £2/2/0. J U'IXLMEXT SUMMONED J. C. Gunnison, v K. 11. Wilson, claim for £2/5/-. There was no appearance of judgment debtor who was ordered to pay the amount forwith, or in default 2 days’ imprisonment. A. E. Wain weight v C. R. Krecgher claim for £7/18/(1. Debtor was ordered to pay the amount forthwith or in default seven daws’ imprisonment, warrant to bo suspended so long as debtor pays 10/- per week. IMPOUNDING CASE , Leonard Honey lie Id was charged that on November 10th, at Patea, net being a pound-keeper, he dlid rescue and interfere with cattle impounded or seized for the purpose of being impounded. Mr. Hamel appeared in support of the information, and Mr. Catliro for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. JaiiK's Hickey, pound-keeper, sworn, said on November 10th as he was making his rounds at about 7.45 a.m. he seized two cows at the corner of Egmont and Victoria Streets, near the petrol bowser. There was no one in charge of them. Witness took charge of the cows, which were very wild and he had a terrible job with them taking them to the pound. As they were wild witness decided to get two of his on n COWS which were quiet ones, to help get (ho others to the pound. Witness had just got the cows to near witness’ place when Be defendant came along on horseback and got between witness and the two cows and proceeded to drive them. home. Witness asked him if he wa.s going to pay the driving foe, and lie said, “No, you got those two cows at my corner while I took the milk in.” Witness had not picked them up at defendant ’s corner, but 25 chains awav, at. the petrol station, or 14 chains by the short cut way, but they were no vor dn ven bv the defendant that way. (Defendant refused to pay the shilling. Witness know the cows. They were defendant’s.

To Mr. Cathro: Witness know the paddock where defendant milked his cows. Witness went past defendant's house about six times a week. Witness did not know that after milking the cows the defendant drove them to the day paddock. When he saw witness coming along the defendant drove them into the paddock. Witness had taken defendant's cows on two different occasions to his paddock and had not been paid two pence by the defendant for doing so. He had not reported tliogo pccfisions to the Town Clerk. Witness know the cows were lie defendant’s. Witness did not take the cows back to the defendant 's paddock because he would not par for them. Witness had no objection to defendant taking the cows from him if he would pay for them. Other people who had {hpif stock impounded always paid witness When wilt ness asked defendant to pay for the stock ho declined saying, “You took them from my corner. ”

Witness was quite close to defendant when h,e refuged to pay. Witness was not excited fit all. It no difference whose stock it was. )Vit||Cf!S (difi not know that defendant called at witness’ rouse at 0.30 on the day ho had taken the cows. He came along at 5.30 and asked wilt ness what was the trouble about the cows. Witness ordered defeijdajit oIV plftce. Witness reported the tacts to the Town Clerk on the same morning. The pound fees had not neon paid. ' Witness had not taken steps to collect rhem. He knew it was no earthly use going to (lefetjdunt, Dpfoiplapt told witness that in; wpuld nqt pay for the cows and that witness had got them at his corner. Witness was certain he heard him say that he would not pay for them. He was not that deaf timf 1(1 cpi'id flot hpar l»j«> s f l N that.

William Wliile stated that he lived near defendant and know his two cows. He said ho saw -Mr. Hickey come past Mr. Kelly’s place and take the two cows ( near the petrol station, at the corner of Bgmont Street and Victoria Street. T)|p fwp cpws yore pot in charge of anybody. Mr. Hickey proceeded to drive the cows across Egmont Street. Witness later met defendant and told him that Mr. Hickey had got his cows. St would be roughly about 8.30 then. Defendant was on horseback.

To Mr. Cathro: Witness was cutting grass at the Town Hall on the day the cows were taken. Jt was between a quarter and ten minutes to eight. The cows passed witness’ house every day, and they seemed very quiet. The cows tried to go up the main street and a man helped Mr. Hickey to drive them back. Witness had known defendant for 20 years and as far as re knew he was one of the most highly respected citizens in Pate.a,

The defendant in evidence stated that he had a paddock which he called a night paddock, and one which lie used during the day. He milked the cows and brought them to his front gate. He then took the milk into his house and strained it and washed his hands. On the morning iin question, after washing his hands he came out and looked for the cows. They wore not in sight. He presumed they may have wandered towards the petrol station, and on going down there he saw the witness White, who told him that Mr. Hickey had got his cows. Witness went down the stock route where they ought to have been, and on going round a corner he found his cows coming to meet him. Witness went on, and after the cows had passed witness Mr. Hickey came round the corner. Witness said; “You are prettyslick this morning, Jimmy. ” He then told witness ho got thorn near the bowser station. Mr. Hickey then said: “Arc you going to pay for them,’’ and witness said ‘yes’ definitely. Air. Hickey then went into his gate. AATtness turned round and the cows went back to witness’ property. AATtness called in at Air. Hickey’s at 0.30 that morning, but no one was in view, so witness went on to lis property and did a day’s work. On returning home witness called at Air. Hickey’s at about 5.30 p.m. Witness asked him where he got to that morning after he saw him and his reply was something he could not say- in the presence of ladies. AATtness then wrote the words alleged to have been said down, and handed them to the Bench.

Continuing the witness said: “I’m not used to being spoken to iin this strain.’’ AATtness invited him to come on to the road and not on private property, and he followed witness on to the road, when witness asked him what he had to say. AVitness agafin wrote what Air. Hickey said, so witness wont home. AVitness said Air. Hickey appeared the worse for liquor. Witness knew his nose did not deceive him. The cows in question wore quiet dairy coys that witness could milk anywhere without a bail. Air. Hickey must have come along just as witness had gone into his home. Witness could not have been away more than five nfmites. Witness had had a dispute with Air. Hickey two years ago and was determined it would not occur again.

To Air. Hamel: AVitness always left the cows outside the house whilst he took tho milk inside. Witness was not at all annoyed when he found the cows impounded. AATtness had never refused to pay Air. Hickey. Witness did not offer to pay Air, Hickey on the present occasion. AVitness had never told him to put the cows hn his paddock at any time and he would pay him.

Mr. Hamel said the incident 'with', regard to milking the cows in the street was of no importance. The offence was the rescuing of the stock. The witness White had given evidence of the seizure of the stock by the pound-keeper, who had given evidence with regard to their rescue. Mr. Cathro, in his address to the Court said to support a charge of rescuing cattle there must be active resistance on the part of the poundkeeper. In the present case there was’ none. The only actual conflict of evidence was whether the accused said ‘Yes' or ‘No' when asked if he was going to pay the foes. The defendant had sworn that he said ‘Yes/ whereas the pound-keeper, who was admittedly deaf, said he said ‘No. ’ In England if cattle are taken out of a jpound that is not locked the Owner is justiiied ill tfihipg them. He could not be convicted for taking them unless the pound-keeper said ‘‘Don’t take them. ’’ The cattle must be taken against the will of the person who has them in his custody. His Worship, in giving judgment, said, “This is not a very serious matter. The Impounding (Act, should be looked at with common sense, obeyed with common sense and administered with common sense. There was no doubt that the cows were lawfully impounded when found straying some seven or eight cluvins according to (jefe ndaat a own statement, I find that the cattle were lawfully seized, but the whole of the issue is what took place when the defendant arrived on the scene. I quite agree with what counsel said with, regard to what copsdUptes a rescue, but one section is very, clear on the point. It says that every person who rescues or attempts to rescue is guilty of an offence. In the present case I must find that there was interference. I don’t say there was a rescue, The cutting in of defendant as described by the poundkeeper ocrtailnly Ms interference. Defendant will be convicted and ordered to pay the expenses of the witnesses and costs,