ILL-TREATMENT ON FARM

Taranaki Daily News, 1 May 1930, Page 7

ILL-TREATMENT ON FARM

HIT PIGS TILL BLOOD CAME FINE INFLICTED ON URUTI MAN. CASES IN NEW PLYMOUTH COURT. “They were driving the pigs by hitting them on the snout and head, and blood was streaming out of their noses and there was blood over the yard," said Mr. Q. Macallan in the New Plymouth Police Court yesterday when Clarence Allen Laurent and Reginald Guscott were charged with the ill-treat-ment of six pigs at Uruti On April 7< Guscott, who appeared and pleaded guilty, was fined £1 and costs £3 14s. The charge against his employee, Laurent, was withdrawn. Inspector Tippihfl. of the Society for . the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, : had 7 gone to Uruti in consequence of ; complaints, said Mr. Macallan. He stayed eome distance down the road to see how Guscott treated his horses. He saw Guscott and Laurent driving some pigs to a lorry. They were hitting them ' with a stick. The inspector went into the yard and naked Guscott if he were not ashamed . of himself. After a while Guscott said he was. He told the inspector there ♦ would hot be a recurrence. •' Guscott said the one pig went down a bank among some bush lawyers and they had trouble in getting .the mob out to the road in time for the lorry. Onlytwo of the pigs were hit with the stick. , The magistratet pointed out that for such an offence a man was liable to eix months’ imprisonment. Even though the pigs were obstinate there was ho necessity to drive them crueliy- . FAILED to account for moneys man remanded for sentence. Pending a report from the probation officer Roy Francis Lovell was remanded for sentence till Saturday on the following charges, to which he pleaded ’ guilty: Theft of £2 14s belonging to Albert 'Tew at Auckland on February ’ 25; failing to account to Albert Tew ‘ for £1 10s received from H. Coyle on February 20, 7s 6d received from Jeane Parkes on February 22, and 15s received - from the Victoria League on February 14. Senior-Sergeant McCrorie said Lovell was employed by Tew, a eignwriter, to collect these moneys for him. A war- . rant was issued in Auckland and Lovell was arrested in New Plymouth. Upon . hie admitting the offences it was arranged that he should be dealt with here. breach of probation terms. DROVE MOTOR-CAR AT NIGHTTIME For a breach of probation in being out without permission after 9 p.m., ‘ Reith Newrick Ferry was admitted to a further term of 12 months’ probation. ’ - ' ' “You and all other persons on probation must understand you are enjoying a privilege in not being sent to gaol,” flaid the magistrate. “It is a privilege that must not be abused. Every condition must be complied with, and if they are not I have the greatest difficulty in not sending the persons concerned to gaol.” The probation officer (Mr. W. Dineen) said Ferry was released on two years.’ probation on January 19, 1929, a condition being that he should not be out after 9 p.m. without the permission of the probation officer. He visited Ferry’s house on the night of April 12 and found he was not at home. There was good and sufficient reason why these probation conditions should be observed. A plea of guilty waa entered by Mr. J. H. Sheat. ° Mr. Dineen, he said, had fltated the facts shortly and fairly. On the Slight in question a party of young men arranged to motor to Hawera. Ferry was not originally included in the perfionnel of the party, but at the last moment the driver could not go, and Ferry, being a licensed driver, was asked to take his* place. He agreed to do so, but omitted to obtain permission from Mr. Dineen. On numerous occasions previously he had obtained permission. The arrangement to replace the driver was not made till late in the day, continued counsel. Ferry maintained he had not the opportunity to see Mr. Dineen before going. Mr. Dineen preferred applicants For leave to see him personally rather than to telephone. As far as counsel knew the proceedings were unique in that court. When a man was brought up for breach of probation it had been because of some offence he had committed. This charge, however, related only to a breach of conditions

and therefore it did not stand on th< same footing as other cases; .'Ferrj realised the seriousness of the position He had already served 15> months 1 of hie probation and - had a ■ clean record. The magistrate said he appreciatec that and all else counsel had said,-but he could not. agree to the suggestior that the matter should be adjourned till the end of the present term. H< had found that was not a very satis factory course to pursue and he proposed therefore to extend probation foi 12 months beyond the present term. Ht could not deal lightly with sucl breaches. Unless the conditions were observed he could not continue to grant probation. . COLLISION NEAR KENT ROAD. FINED FOR DANGEROUS DRIVING Arising out of a motor collision or February 23 on the Junction Road, neai Kent Road, Robert- John Mahon -wa« charged with dangerous driving. Mr N. .H. Moss appeared for him and plead ed not guilty. Senioi-Sergeant McCrorie said that about 2.40 p.m". Mahon was driving very fast on his wrong side round a corner near the bridge. He was going towards Inglewood. Francis A. Parsons, with his wife, was coming towards New Plymouth and a collision occurred. After evidence for the prosecution Mr. Moss said Mahon had just been served with a writ for £500; and he desired a short adjournment to consider the matter. Upon the resumption of the hearing counsel said he would withdraw the plea of not guilty owing to the unfortunate fact that he was in the car by himself. His story did not tally with that of the other witnesses, but counsel must accept the evidence of the independent witness. He asked.that the license should not be cancelled as this would inflict a hardship on the father, a dairy farmer, who used a lorry to take milk to the factory. Mr. Moss pointed out that the car driven by Mahon was new and it was unlikely, therefore, that he would drive it- fast. He had been struck on the head and dazed and had no clear recollection of the matter. „ \ After warning Mahon of the seriousness of the offence and impressing on him the need for care, the magistrate inflicted a fine of £3, with £4 5s lOd costs. ' '