MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Colonist, Volume XLVI, Issue 10862, 31 October 1903, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Yesterday, before Mr Robinson, 3.M., George Clarke was fined 25 % 6& with 7s costs for riding : his bicycle m the foofcpa.th.-~T. A. Fields A. d. Betts, and F. Batchelor were each ined 2s 6d with 7s costs for riding their bicycles without lights after 3unset. „-.•.. Henry Mellett was fined 2s 6d, with 7s costs, for allowing a horse 'to be at large. : ■ ' • ' ' ir F. N. Jones -wa3 fined 2s fid, wibh 7s costs, for allowing a horse to be at large. Mr Jones contested the case. He desired to prove that the Ranger had acted illegally on a previous occasion, when the '* Bench stopped him as tnat had nothing tb do with bhe caae before the Court, telling defendant if the Ranger had done anything wrong defendant; should make a complaint to the C:it£ Cbtifacil. Defendant said it whs aiMystery how the horse .got out of the paddock and that it was a difficult matter to catch the horse when it -got loose. He considered it was unreasonable to rouse 4 groom* put of his slejsfp at fdfcr o'clock in the morning as tHe Banger had done. , Hugh Hamilton, Ti E. Ohisholm, and Louis Frost were each fined 2s 6d, with 7s costs, for allowing their horses to be at large; , W. C; Harley for allowing two horses to be tethered in Waimea road, was fined ss* with 7s costs. Thomas Petti t,was ; finejd ss, with 7s costs for allowing two horsestpjbe at large. Mr Petti t contested the, case. He called evidence to show the. horses in question were just, jabout to be driven to their paddock, themanat the time was Vetting ready a third horse, when the Ranger, saw theatwo horses which had just left the yard* He contended that, there had been no breach of' the by-la w» and that where there were a number of horses to take to a paddock there should be reasonable time allowed, . as proved by him, his horses were only out pf the yard two or three minutes. He had owned horses for twenty years* and had never been fined for a breach of the by-laws.— The Bench considered a technical breach had been committed, and inflicted the fine named. Kasper Fairey -was charged with allowing two horses to be at large. Mr F. W. Fairey contested the case. He called evidence to prove the horses had only just got out of the yard. He swore the gate was fastened tight,and how the horses got out wa§ a mystery. He strongly protested at pedple being called td Court and haying their time wasted, to say nothing of the annoyance and worry to answer such charges, and that the by-la£w was being misapplied in such cases. He said a person charged with drunkenness was taken care of, fed, provided with a bed, and, then was dismissed with, a caution, but in these by-law cases there was no letting off with a caution. There would be a protest to the City Council against the manner in which the bylaw was being 'used,.r-The Bench said there had be a technical breach, and a. fine of 2s> without : costs, was, inflicted. - '