POLICE COURT. THIS DAY.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 9668, 10 April 1893, Page 2

POLICE COURT. THIS DAY.

Monday, April 10.— Before R. Parris. Esq., J.P., C. K. Stock, Esq., J.P., D. Berry, Esq., J.P., and C. Kennel!, Esq., J.P.

Drunkenness.— Toby To Kawau was charged with being drunk and disorderly, and assaulting a lad on April 8. Major Brown interpreted. Defendant said he was drunk, but did not retnembor being disorderly. Sergt. Duffin called Richard Barrett, who said a number of boys were around the prisoner anooying him. Prisoner jumped off his horse and struck witness, who had not done anything to him, Henry Budd stated that he saw prisoner strike Barrett with a belt.— Constable Grey stated that ho took the prison in charge. Prisoner was surrounded by a mob of larrikins, who apparently had been annoying him.— Sergt Duflin said under the circumstances of the caso he would ask tho Bench to deal leniently with accused. — The Bench inflicted a fine of Is and costs for drunkenness, and dismissed the case of assault.

Doa in Recreation Ground — Francis Peacock Corkill pleaded not guilty to a charge of having a dog in his following in the Recreation Grounds on April 3. Mr Parris wanted to know if the by laws had been duly authorised Sorgt DufTin Baid that thoy ha«? been gazetted. Sergt. Duflin called Richard Cock, member of the Recreation Board, who said Mr Corkill was also a member. On April 3 Mr Cork 11 drew -witness's attention to the fact that the dog had followed him into the grounds unknown to him (MrCorkill), and that- ho was in tho aot of taking it cut when he pointed tho dog out to Mr Cock. In answer t » dvfe dant witness said that ho could not swear that dofondant admitted or took the dog into tho grounds. Ho only knew that the dog wns in the grounds with him. - This was the evidence — The defendant took excep tion t • the copy o£ by-laws produced, as there was nothing to show that thoy wore the by-lawH of the Re roalion Ground?. He contended that a irazotted copy shou'd be produced. — Mr Parria said that the bylaws had been acted on before, and they were, therefore, disposod to act on them. — Mr Corkill then gave evidence that he went to tho Sports on Monday ;.ftornoon. Tha dog was not taken or admitted by him t) tho grounds, nor did the dog follow him in, but must have conic in on iiis scent some titno aftor he entered the groundp. Whan he *aw the dog he took him out. He submitted that the by law only provided for cases where doga wore admitted or taken into the grounds, and tliTO was no penalty nguinst an owner of a dog which went into tho grounds of its own accord, except that tho dog cou'd .bo destroyed.— After a conference, Mr Parris sail that there had been some slight difference ia opinion among members of the Baneli, but they h id agreed to meet each other. The Bench were of opinion that it was not lawful to admit or take a dog into the ground?, and that any dog found wandering in tho grounds cculd be shot. The Bent n were of opinion that there was no proof that Mr Corkill admitted or took the dog into tho ground, and under the circumstances the chnrge would bo dismissed.

Neighbors' Differences — Two hds, Edward and Gaspard Myers, were charged with ion* cting injury on a cow by dogging her at Lopper Road on March 10, the cow being the property of Christopher Auton. They pleaded not yuilty. Mr Hughes for complainant, and Mr Kerr for defendants. After hearing evidence on both sides the Bunch lined defendants 10d each, and costs amounting to about £5. The Court rose.