Supreme Court.

Alexandra Herald and Central Otago Gazette, Issue 371, 18 June 1903, Page 5

Supreme Court.

IN BANCO. (Before His Honor, Mr Justice Williams), Pitches v. Kinney. An appeal from the decision of the magistrate at Ophir. Mr Gilkison appeared for the appellant, John Pitches, storekeeper, of Ophir, and Mr F. R. Chapman for the respondent, Alexander Kinney, runholder, of Chatto Greek.

In the case heard before Mr M?Ennis, S.M., judgment was given against defandant; plaintiff alleging that defendant mustered his stock without giving plaintiff notice before yarding, plaintiff occupying the adjoining lands. At the hearing it was shown that between the run of the two parties the River flowed, and on both sides of the river were reservations a chain wide along the banks, these not being included in the runs of either party. It was contended for defendant that the said runs, owing to being separated by the river and the reserves were not adjoining lands within the meaning of section 50 of The Stock Act, 1893, under which defendant was charged, and therefore defendant had not done wrong in not giving notice. The magistrate ruled that for the purposes, meaning and spirit of the act the lands were adjoining, and inflicted a nominal penalty. Legal argument was heard on the case.

Mr Gilkison submitted that the main question was as to the meaning of the 'word "adjoining," and contended that it meant "lying next," quoting dictionary interpretations and decisions under the Fencing Acts and English Acts. He quoted also the case of Fergusson v Fretwell, in which the coart held the words of the statute must prevail. He referred also to the difficulties that would result to owners ot land if the statute were construed as the magistrate had done, as it woul < then be necessary for„ the owner of a large station when mustering his stock to inform not only the owners of land adjoining, but owners of land near by, to which stock might possibly stray. The reserves, so far as the case went to show, were reserves neither party had any right to have stock upon. Mr Chapman contended that the word " adjoining" should not have restricted meaning in the present case. Primarily the word might mean " contiguous," but in this case it should be taken with .a wider meaning in order to carry out the purpose of the act. He cited eases to support bis contention.

His Honcr reserved his decision.