RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 968, 13 June 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

ASHBURTON.— To-day. Before Joseph Beswick, Esq., R.M. Breichbs' op Borough By-laws.—A number of cases in which defendants were okarged with breaches of the Borough By-laws, fines being inflicted in each instance. Drunkenness. —Two ,first offenders were fined os each for this offence. Sheep Stealing. —William Legge was brought up, on remand, charged with having stolen sheep from Clunes and other places.—Sergeant Felton conducted the prosecution, and Mr Crisp appeared for the defence.—Duncan Cameron, farmer, deposed that he had lust several sheep. Knew Meek’s farm, which prisoner was managing, which bounds witness’s upper farm. Visited Meek’s farm on June 2nd in company with Messrs Jackson and Macfarlane. Witness found sixteen sheep there with Mr Meek’s brand on and his (witness’s) earmark, and he took possession of these. Went to the woolshed where he found the skin produced, which he recognised as his property by the earmark and brand. The kin was that of a sheep killed since la-t shearing. Prisoner had no permission, to kill witness’s sheeii. There is some sitnilarity between the earmark of witness and that of Messrs Meek, but none in the brand. Prisoner admitted to witness that he had billed tt.e sheep. Mr Thomas Jackson was present at the time.—Cross-examined : The fence between Meek’s farm and witness’sland adjoining was not sheep proof, and the sheep often got mixed- Knew .tbat jpris■onar had .heed maxiaging for AVer- a year. There was no attempt on the part of prisoner to conceal his sheep, and witness was able to inspect them at his pleasure. Witness went to the farm solely for the purpose of drafting sheep, but did not suspect anything prior to the visit. The skin was found in the place where it is customary to hang them, Gould swear that.

the she p did not die of tutu, although that is known in that part of the country. Would not swear that he' had not sold or parted with the sheep in any way, but all that witness’s had disposed were at the Addington Yards. By the appearance of the skin he judged that the sheep were killed and did not die from natural causes. . Prisoner on being spoken to said that he had noticed to whom the sheep belonged, but that he would pay for it. Several of Messrs Meek’s sheep had got into witness’s flocks, and it was quite' possible that one of the latter’s shepherds might kill another farmer's sheep —-Philip B. Bolton, registrar of brands for the Canterbury district, produced the brand and earmark register. He gave evidence as to the difference between Cameron’s a id Meek’s brands arid earmarks, and identified the skin produced os belonging to the former by the brand, but the earmark : was jnot Mr Cameron’s. Messrs Meek had not registered under the -new Act, and consequently had no.legal brand, but his Worship admitted tHe firm’s former brand as evidence. ; Cross-examined : Could not say when the earmarks were made, though that on the left eat ,looked .fresh- Should'' say that the sheep had been skinned about three months from the time of shearing. Did not think' that sufficient 'siiriiliarity existed between the two earmarks to Cause a mistake to be made.—Duncan Cairiekon, recalled, said that the sheep had other earmarks on it when he bought it, and that he had put his own mark on afterwards. —Cross-examined : Ooud> riot say if another earmark had been tnade after witness’s.—Robert Neill, constable, deposed that he arrested the prisoner-kin the 7ch June, when he stated he skilled the sheep by mistake, and that he would > pay Mr Cameron.—This concluded the - evidence, and Mr Crisp said he ’didmot i intend to call any witnesses. He submitted that it was not shown that any criminal act had been committed.—His > Worship said he would hear the evidence i. iq,the other cases before deciding’. prisoner was.then charged with .stealing » eight; sheep, trie property ,ot i Jackson.—-Julian Jackson deposed that i he was a member of : the firtq of T. Jackson, sheepfarmers, near Moth van. ’ Knew the farm of J. and T. Meek, which > prisoner was managing. • Witness rel membered being there ori : the Ist aridjTth * June, when he took possession' of bight - sheep, which were in Meeks’ yard. • ®e- •’ cognised the sheep produced as -betefag&ig ) to witness, from the private mirk iriPfhe nostril. ' The earmark had been/altered to resemble that "of Meeks’ sheep. Witness’s land was separated from Meek’s by a boundrry a fenco, which/ was not a good one.—Cross-examined : Thri’ :l Sheep of the different farmers got muted owing to the Witness went to' Meek’s for the purpose of seeing whether any sheep were dead. Could notswoar that - he bad not sold the sheep' produced. ' made no objection to witness taking away the sheep. Such ari earmark ’ as that on the sheep could riot* be altered. —By the Bench ; Did not go to-'drift the ' sheep by prisoners’ invitation.—l*. 8.Bolton gave evidence to the effect that he recognised Messrs Jackson’s' earmark ’ on the near ears of sheep 'produced. —T. Jackson said that he was a sheep farmer, ’ previously in partnership with the first witness, his brother. The' witness gave 1 corroboratory evidence as to the visit of himself and brother to Meek’s farm. Rb- ’ cognised the earmarks and thought ; that they had been made recently. - Had sold sheep of a similar class to Mr M’ llraith and Mr Harper in April, when they had witness’s earmark. The brand now on the sheep was that of 'J; arid T. Meek. About 150 sheep had been missed since the shearing from witness's/land.—'Oross- - examined : Not the slightest ; obj action ■ was made by the prisoner to the removal i of the sheep. Could not say how >, many of the sheep had bean tampered c- with. Knew that Mr Meek- had test sheep, because some of them had died in witness’s paddock. The causes of death were po.verty and had weather. This ) finished the evidence on the second charge t ; arid his Worship said that as there was a large quantity of civil work ho Would remand, the hearing of the other charges till > to-morrow at 10 a. m. • ' .V" - :,. ■ : - CIVIL CASES. f Grigg v. Sutherland.—This was a clpam , of Ll 5 12s, for grazing horses on I plain- [ tiff’s land.—Mr Garrick appeared for j plaintiff, and Mr Wilding for the defendant.—W. Isbister deposed that he was - accountant co Mr Grigg. Defendant was the contractor for cutting drain, qea£fto r the Hinds, and had grazed a number of . horses upon plaintiffs property. Witness . had told, defendant that ha .wouhlwba , charged for the horses grazing, but lie answered that be would not pay. ~ Had - subsequently, on the 22rid November, • sent a letter stating that defendant would < be charged Is per week. The horses ref mained on the ground until.the conclusion _ of the contract. —Cross-examined ~Tna ’ defendant always said that he would not - pay, but witness did not remerribar'if the ! defendant said that if ho were obliged to r pay he would throw up the contract." The contract'was done for the County Council, ■ and it would benefit Mr Grigg’s land. l Was not prepared to swear that the men ; were not camped on a surveyed road/Wlt if they were the road was not marked Out. ■ -Re-examined : The one paddock con- ■ tained about 1,000 acres, and there were no roads where the men wore' camp* ' ing. Counted the horses about three [ times a week, and (saw them every day.— John Grigg said that there was a roadat the top of the paddock, but he did riot think that there were any camped on ?it. The price, Is per head, was the loweat he had ever charged for horses.—Cross-ex-amined: The men were on the works by witness’s concurrence, but in no other part of the paddock. Did not know Sutherland, and had never had any conversation with him to his reoollectiqo. The land was not broken up, as it was too well laid down in English grass, and there was no peat in the part of the paddpek where the horses were. Was quite-eure that Sutherland never saw wit ess in the County Council offices, nor was there Anything said, to his recollection, about* the entrance to the paddock being boggy.— For the defence, Mr Wilding called the following evidence:—William Sutherland said that he was engaged on a drainage contract through Mr Grigg’s land. '- The work was to deepen and widen the river, and to cut a drain, which would .benefit the whole district. Witness waited, on Mr Grig; at the ' ounty Council Chambers, when Messrs Jackson, Cameron, and others were present. Had a conversation with him, and _ asked him for permission to get on the land in a particular direction, and he consented. Nothing was said by Mr Grigg about a claim for grazing, nor did he hear anything of it till about the 10th of November, three weeks after the commencement of the contract. He then told the plaintiff’s manager that he would not pay for the fodder of the horses, and that he would throw up the contract if the claim was persisted in. The men were camped within peven chains of the drain, .put witness iid not know whether they were in a roadline. English grass was riot sufficient for horses doing such work, and they had to be fed three times a day. The contract covered 27 acres, and the e horaea were grazing betweeqpegs as often as in other parts of the paddock. Could not keep the horses tied' rip on account of the cattle.—Cross-examiried : If the horses had not run on the land it would have been necessary to. erect stables, or to tie them up. Sarif Mr Grigg at the County Council on 4th October, arid had the with him as. narrated. ; Had no communication with either plaintiff or his manager after receiving the written notice. Oriunael

v having addressed the Court, his Worship ' gave judgment for plaintiff for L 8 Bs. and COltfe 1 Judgment went by default in the following cases:—Beecher v. Edgeworth, claim L 8 6a 6d; Mcßae v. Copeland, Lg 6s; Orr and Co v. Savage, L 8 I4s; Orr and Co v. Campbell, Llll4s. 1 TLeft Sitting ]