MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Waipawa Mail, Volume XLVI, Issue 23, 7 November 1924, Page 1

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

YESTERDA&". (Before- Mr R. W. Dyer, SAL) ARMS Act. Ernest Limbriek was charged with two breaches of the Arms Act in sending 1 a rifle to an auction mart for sale and in not notifying- the police iif his change of address from Blenheim to Hastings. Constable O’Halloran stated that when defendant left Blenheim the ri lie was sent to the mart for sale. He also failed to notify the police of his departure. Mr Wedde, for the defendant, urged in extenuation that the offence was committed in ignorance. The rifle was sent to the mart with other chattels by mistake, and Mr Limbriek did not know it was necessary to notify his change of address.

The Magistrate accepted the plea, but pointed out that these inadvertencies caused the police a lot of trouble. A fine of £1 and costs was imposed on the first information, and defendant was convicted aud discharged on the second. EXPENSIVE PLEASURE.

x\ sequel to the R.S.A. ball held in Waipawa on the night of September S)th was a batch of summonses

against owners of motor cars for leaving their vehicles in a public roadway without lights. Fines of £1 and costs were imposed against H. 1.. Benjamin, Clifford Schroder, M. (’. Tansey, T. E. Wlielch, Godfrey Bibby, and J. B. Hamilton. PROHIBITED. Prohibition orders were issued against Edward Jackson and William John Owen. STRAY STOCK. The following charges in connection with wandering stock were dealt with: — J. Ellis, 75 head of cattle at Takapau, fined £7 10s, and costs £1 13s. V. Petersen, one horse, at Ashley Clinton, £2 and costs £1 15s Bd. James Brown, six cows, at Tikokino, £0 and costs £1 15s. DEFENDED CASE. Arthur Hickey was charged with on August 15th, allowing 30 head of cattle to he herded or grazed on a public thoroughfare, the Otane-Argvll road. Mr Strang appeared for the County and Mr Hallett for the defendants. W. Taylor, ranger, stated that on (he date in question he visited the locality in company with R. W. Bond, and found a mob of cattle grazing on the road. Defendant was sitting on fhe bank watching them. He said he did not know it was an offence to graze cattle on the road. He said lie did not think he was doing any harm. The cattle were well spread over the road and were a danger to the travelling public.

Mr Hallett said the main defence was that the cattle were on fhe road being driven from defendant’s farm to a place at Te Aute where they bad arranged grazing. When the ranker came on the scene defendant was waiting for the person with whom he bad arranged grazing. Defendant, in evidence, stated that m the date in question he left home with the rattle about noon. Had arranged to meet Mr Ward, who was Living another mob. After being here for about an hour and a-half Messrs Bond and Taylor drove up, ind the latter started to drive sonic )f the cattle. Some words ensued. Did not tell the ranger that he did not hink he was doing any harm. P. Ward gave evidence as to ar■anging with Norman Hickey for the •razing .of cattle. Had arranged to neet Hickey on the date in question jut could not keep the appointment. Norman Hickey detailed arrangenents with Ward for taking over the •attle for grazing. Met Messrs Bond md Taylor. The former accused him if tailing cattle on the road and witless denied if.

To Mr Strang: Did not tell Bond vhere he was driving the cattle. Did lot feel inclined to give him any satisfaction.

The Magistrate said he was not at til satisfied with the evidence for the lefencc. Probably there were nego;iations with Ward for the grazing of he cattle, but why the explanation •iven to the Court was not given to favlor and Bond he could not understand. It was such an easy way out. instead of that the defendants said Ley would not give the ranger any satisfaction. A fine of £3 was imposed, with costs £2 9s.

A similar penalty was imposed against Norman Hickey on a. like charge,

CIVIL CASES. Judgment was entered for plaintiffs by default in the following civil cases:—L. W. Simpson and Son v. F. Eyre, £l4 2s, costs £2 17s; D. H. Edwards v. T. Ireland, £3 18s, costs £1 14s fid; W. Malenoir v. George Tohi, £ls 18s, costs £3 10s; Manini Nan Paraonui v. W. H. Gerbes, £4O 15s Gd, costs £4 11s (id. A PERENNIAL. Lydia Grant applied for an increase of the maintenance order of 30s a week against Gideon James Grant. Mr Strang, for the applicant, stated that two months ago the arrears were cancelled on certain evidence tendered, but it had since been found that the evidence in respect to rent and loss of time was not true. Mr Wedde, for the defendant, objected to a letter from the clerk of the Hawke’s Bay County Council, being put inns evidence, and the objection was upheld. After the applicant had given evidence and Mr Strang had closed his case, Mr Wedde submitted there was no case to answer. His worship dismissed the case without prejudice. Costs were allowed against the complainant of solicitor’s fee £1 Js, witness’ expenses £1 11s Gd.