MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1492, 25 February 1887, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

ASRB URTON— FRIDAY.

(Before Mr John OlHvier, 8.M.) DRXJKKBNNEBB. A first offender was fined 53 and ooits, A fine of 10s and coots was ioflloted In the case of a man chaiged with being drank while m oharge of a horse, bat whose fiiit offence it was, VNNA.TVRAI OFFBNOB, A swagger named John Crawford was charged with having attempted to commit an unnatural offence at Ohertsey. —The Court was olearad ofall young persons, and evidence having been taken, the accused waa remanded for a week m order to eecure the attendance of two other witnesses. CITJL CASES Pooook v Charles, olain £L — Mr Oath, bertson for plaintiff. —Judgment for plain* tiff for amount claimed and coits. Jackson v D. O'Connor claim 19s, 7d—Judgment for plaintiff by default for the amount olaimed and coßts. , Protheroe v Brown, oltim £HBlld. —Mr White with him Mr OayglU for plaintiff Mr Orlap for defendant— This was acclaim for alleged illegal impoanding t it being oontended on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant, Samuel Browo, had impounded certain sheep which had trespassed on property belonging to John Brown, the imponnding it being alleged having taken place without the consent of John Brown. — The ouo had been partly heard on a former Court day, but m consequenoe of the abßenoe of evidence material to his oise the plaintiff had been nonsuited, — The following wra the evidence : — A Protheroe the plaintiff stated that 37 of his sheep had been Impounded one of which died m the pound; Witness spoke to defendant on the subject and he admitted having impounded the aheep off hia brother's land on hia own responsibility daring his brother's absenoe. Witness had a converaation with John Brown, who said he had never given his brother, S. Brown. permission to impound off his land and expressed disapproval of the act, — W. B. Oompton said that 36 sheep were b-oaght to the pound by R. H. Bennett. Witness paid the fees to S. Brown. The sheep, one of which died m the pQuod, were released by the plaintiff. — R. H. Bennett, m the employ of S, Brown, said that m January last he impounded some sheep, The sheep were taken by S. Brown's instructions, and were taken from property belonging to John Brown. — This waa the oaae for the plaintiff, and Mr Crisp called the following evidenoe for the defence : — S. Brown said that on the day the aheep were impounded a passer-by oame to witness and told him that there w»s a mob of sheep m his brothei's wheat crop. The man paid that he had tried to gei them out but he oould not. His brother being away, witness Bent Bennett down with ordern to impound the sheep. vVhen hia brother was away witness was m the habit of looking after his land. Wit* ness's brotber had approved of the impounding—Mr White crosseximined the witness inregard to the light m which John Brown regarded the impouuding. — John Brown, who was away when the sheep were impounded, Baid that he approved of the action of hie brother m taking plaintiffs sheep out of witness wheat orop. —By Mr White : Subsequent to the impounding, witness and plaintiff went over the orop to see what damage had been done. Protheroe offered to pay for the damage done. He eald that he was sorry that the aheep had been impounded because witness's sheep had often trespassed on his land. He asked witness if it waa by his authority that the sheep had been impounded. Witness replied that it was not, and m answer to further queries said that if he (witness) had been at hom,e the sheep would not have been impounded, but that if any great damage bad been done they would have assessed it between them. Witness said that as his aheep had trespassed on Frotheroe's land the matter of damages then caused need go no further.— The Magistrate commented favorably on the fair way m which all the witnesses had given their eviderce. The defendant had however, overstepped the bounds of discretion and acted without authority. Judgment for plaintifl with costs. The Conrt then rose. '