RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume VI, Issue 1798, 7 October 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY. ( Before E. W. Puckey, and J. Pebston Esqs., J.P's.) VAGBANT GOATS. John McCurdy was charged with haying committed a breach of Sectioa 43 of Bye-law No 1 of Borough of Thames by allowing one goat and two kids to wander at large in Bailie-street, Thames (impounded). There was no appearance of defendant. Mr. Bnllen said the summons had been served upon defendant. (Defendant in this case, subsequently appeared.) Fined 2s 6d and costs. A DISCONSOLATE PIG. Jacob Jung wa« charged with having committed a breach of section 42, of Bye-law No. 1, by allowing one pig to wander at large on uninclosed land at Tararu. Mr. Dodd. appeared for defendant, and pleaded not guilty. Mr. Bullen put in Bye-law No. 1 as evidence, and drew attention to the section applying to the charge. Defendant's counsel would admit nothing, and Mr. Bullen therefore put in the different Gazettes proclaiming the adoption of Bye-law No. 1, and stated that by the Municipal Corporations Act the interpretation of the word "cattle" included pigs. John B. Mason deposed—That he was an officer of the Borough Council of Thames. Remembered the 2nd of the present month—he was at Tararu. His attention was drawn to a pig wandering at large between Mr. Wilson's house and Mr. Jung's house. The place was uninclosed land, and there was no person in charge of the pig. When witness* was leaving a man came out to drive the pig into Mr. Jung's premises. The man said the pig was Mr. Jung's. Mr. Bullen said the man in the employ of defendant had not been summoned to attend; as it was not thought the ownership of the pig would be denied, and if he refused to give evidence, he (Mr. Bullen) should ask for an adjournment. (The man in question here left the Court.) Mr. Dodd objected strongly to the adjournment as he (Mr. Bullen) should have been in a position to go on with the case. In the first place,there was no evidence to prove that Mr. Mason was "the proper officer," as required by the Act. ■ '■■■'■ ■ \

Mr. Bulleu said that question had been argued in that Court before, and it was a well-tnown legal maxim that all officers were taken to be properly appointed until the contrary was shown. In reply to Mr. Dodd J. 8.. Mason produced his authority to act as Inspector of Nuisances and Public Health Officer for the Borough of Thames. Ho believed that the pig belonged to defendant when he (witness) had been in possession of defendant's property under a bill of sale, about two months ago. Had.no ill-will towards defendant.

Mr. Dodd here said life would admit the ownership, but remarked that the pig had-"been confined to the stye, but escaped some little distance from defendant s premises. Fined Is, and costs. The dourt then adjourned.