MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1353, 28 September 1886, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBURTuN—TUESDAY.

Before Mr H. C. S. Biddeley, R.M.]

AN UNFORTUNATE CISB.

Themis Glenn, a blind man, an iomata of the Old Men’s Home, was brought to Cou, t by the police, who s ated that be refused to stop at the Home. Giants said that the inmates cf the Some tormented him and ho would sooner take a lertenae in gaol as a vagrant than -go btek The police said that the Matty could not had ihjre was any fotmlation for the men’s statement that the other inmates annoyed him. The Magistrate could not eee his way to commit a blind min to gaol. After some consultation, it was decided that Glenn should go back to the Home, and if it were found that he was subjected to any annoyance that the polio should take proceedings against the offenders. UNREGISTERED DOGS. C. Homoraham was charged with being the owner of an unregistered dog. As be had paid 10s for the release of the d no fine was inflicted. For keeping a dog with an old registration badge cn, Mr Hom?rsham was fined lOt and coats. - c . Muter was charged with being the owner of an unregistered do’. As this case was a similar one to Mr Homersham’s, the defendant was treated in a like manner: omi CASES. G bson v Cole, claim £5, value of c?rtjin pigs alleged to have been taken and Cole v Gibson, calm £l3, also value of certain pigs alleged to have been taken, damages for trespass and injuries to certain pigs, which bad returned It appeared that each of the oa ? t : -s laid claim to the same pigs.—Mr Crisp fop Mrs Gibson, Mr Wilding for Cole. It was dcvid d that the oases should be

heard together and In view of the absence of Mra Gibson that Mr Cole's side should first be taken—G. Colo, farmer at Wakanui said his laud adjoined Mrs Gibson’s. Missed twelve of his pigs on August 3. Among them was a sow with peculer marks, which the witness described to the Bench. All the pigs were earmarked with a punch. Witness did not knew of a similar mark in the district, but Mra Gil am bad told him her pigs had a hesre-shaped earmarked This was quite distinct from witness's mark. Eleven of the pigs witness m ! aaed, were from 6 to 12 months old, the sow wea about years old. Five oi tho pigs name back to witness’s p'ace. He described tho acimalr, ttuing that all the earmarks except one had been defaced. Mra Gibson had slooe taken prsaassion cf two of the five pigs. About a week after witness first missed the pigs he met Mrs Gibson and asked if she had mark-d witness s pigs by mistake in mustering She snid not. She also said that she had Jest some pigs. Witness went down t ■ Mrs Gibson’s place to see if he could fi id traces of any of his pigs, but he did not do sr, nm being able to get close to the pigs. But# time afco’watds, in consequence of what witness was told by a man named Grcgo-y, he went to Mrs Gibson’s place and found the sow he had before depended. The earmark was but witness recognised the pig beyond all doubt as his Witness came to Ashburton and saw hia solicitor and the police. Two dayi afterwards witness demanded the sow from Mrs Gibson, but she declined to g ve it up, saying it was here. Witness waa coiig away when she called him back and said hia pig« had destroyed 200 bushels cf her oats Witness denied this, and was going away when she called out to him tha if he paid for the oats destroyed ha could take .bis pigs away. Soon afterwards witness took possession of tha sow ; ha s nt a note to Mrs Gil son telling her be had done so. On the following day Mrs Gib ion’s son, and J r-y Sullivan otme to witness’ place and asked him for the pigs he “had stolen.’’ Witness detailed * conversation lhat followed. Witners * pigs ware mustered, and Lowe end a ratn named We'sh c»me on the scene. Ttiey wanted to take the sow cut cf the yard she was in, but wi.ness would not let them. They threatened! to break the gate open, and witness picked np a stick, threatening to knock dosn anyone who attempted to do so. Lowe challenged witness to fight two or three times. They took two of witness’s pigs. Mrs Gibson appeared on the scene shortly afterwards and told the men to taka the pigs with them.—The witness was examined with regard to Mrs Gibson’s claim He denied having any pigs in his obsession belonging to her —Sergeant Felton remembered Cole bringing a pig to him to examine on August 9. He described the earmaiks , some were old, and some had not been done more than a d«y or lw>,—George Cole was recalled, and exr-ra ned by Mr Crisp at soma hngtfc.—F J. Rickard, farmer at Wakamv, said ho went with Cole to Mrs Gibson’s p’-c . The former asked for his pigs He corroborated Cole’s evidence as to the interview. —By Mr Ciisp: Was on bad t nns with Mrs Gibson. Mrs Cola corrob rated her husband’s evidence as to the pigs missed, >hiir description, those recovered, and the seizure of two by jVX?* Gibson’s men—By Mr Crisp; Witce a did not threaten to hit John Gibson.— Eliza Cole Identified one of the pigs— Henry Cashmere, wbo bad for some time been in Mr Cole’s employ also gave evidence —Alfred Greg- ry and John Cro xe stated their ability to identify the sow. - BoberfMaxwell gave evidence regarding the earmark used by Mr Co'e —By Mr Crisp; Mrs 6 b=on told witness thstshe had lost some pigs she had bought a- auction.—At this stage the witnesses on both sides were niraide the Court to identify cert tin pigs wTch h d been brought down. One of tho wtne-sses, B. Maxwell said the punch hole (CVe’a earmark) on the animal’s ears w.-.s much older than the slits (Mrs Gibson’s ear mark) —Mr Crisp opened his case, and called Martha Gibson, who said ; In March last had 31 pigs. Had bougl t 83 since then in three lota. One lot was branded wiih two hearts, portion of another with one heart ; —Missed a lot of pigs, and in consequence put on another * earmark. -Saw Cole on a Monday in August ; he said somebody had b. eu earmarking his pigs Atked him what the mark was. He said a slit In right ear and piece off left. Told him it was her mark He said witness hud better come down and claim the pigs. He subsequently refused to give the pigs up. The sow which Cole claimed was witness’s property, and had been bred on her farm. Witness gave details of a conversation which took place when Rickards came with Cole. Witness was willing that Cole should take the three pigs, one of which he claimed, provided he paid the damage they had dore. These animals bad done a lot of damage and had to be shut cp. Invited Cole to have a look at her pigs, which were ali yarded, in order to see if any cf his pigs were among i them. He refused to come and also re- | fused to yard hia pigs so that witness | might see if there were any of hers . among them. Sent seme of her men down to Cole’s to get the sow which he had taken away. Went there herself soon after and saw the men in the road with two pigs. Cole was at the gate in an excited state Told Cole to come to her place and see If some pigs which were there were hiel—By Mr Wilding ; Would swear positively that the sow referred to was her own property, that she had had it for about three years. She had no ether sow that she c uld mistake for it, hough she had formerly had some very like it, but they all had disappeared. Was sure the sow had no ring through its nose when it left witness’s place. The -witness was cross-examined at great length. (Left sitting.)