Marlborough Express - Weekend Express
Reining in the case of the wandering horse
Two brothers are taken to court over a wandering horse in central Blenheim, this week 110 years ago, as we take a flick through the archives. From the Marlborough Express, November 11, 1913.
The adjourned case in which Moosey Peters and Mansoor Peters were each charged with that they did on October 12 allow a horse to wander in Opawa Street, Blenheim, was dealt with by Mr F. O’B Loughnan, S.M., this morning.
The defendants pleaded not guilty, and at the outset contested the information on the grounds that it set forth that the horses were seized in the Omaka district. They would prove that the animals were taken in Stuart Street, in the borough. They also protested against the prosecution of two members of the one firm which owned both horses.
His Worship said that there was no need to bring two cases.
William Ramsay, impounder, was the informant. He produced a written instruction from the Omaka Road Board to institute proceedings against owners of stock found straying on the roads. He gave evidence as to his finding the two horses
early in the morning in Opawa Street and impounding them.
George Saunders, poundkeeper, informed the Magistrate that a boy took the two horses out of the pound later in the morning, paying 4s.
Moosey Peters cross-examined freely. The witness flatly denied that he had subjected the Peters brothers to persecution, that he indulged in favoritism (sic) in taking proceedings against stock owners, that he took advantage of the defendants’ ignorance of the law when they came to Blenheim and made them pay excessively for the recovery of their horses, that two years ago he accepted a parcel containing a shirt and socks in lieu of his fees, and that he offered to allow the defendants to run their horses on the roads for 4s a week.
Mansoor Peters, who was not called on to give evidence, complained that he was prosecuted just after the death of one of his daughters and while another daughter was dying. He denied that he had been defying the law.
Replying to his Worship, the informant said that he must necessarily use his discretion in proceeding against the owners of straying stock. In some instances stock got on to the roads accidentally, and in some cases they were deliberately and persistently grazed on the roads. The present case was of the latter nature.
His Worship said it was not proper conduct on the part of a public officer to make such distinctions as it appeared had been made by the informant. These two men did not seem to have been treated quite fairly. They had not been given the treatment that had been accorded to others. He would dismiss the cases.
He was not at all satisfied that such discrimination as the informant had exercised was the proper thing. If the impounder had instructions to proceed against everyone he should not weed out some stock-owners and let others off. That meant favoritism (sic).