AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume I, Issue 54, 23 January 1877, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, January 19, 1877.] [Before J. Aylmer, Esq., R.M.] MAGEE V. LIBEAU. This was an action to recover the sum of £7 for the grazing of a coav for three years, and the value of a heifer claimed and removed by defendant's orders. He held that the heifer Avas his property. Mr. Nalder appeared for plaintiff. Plaintiff deposed—On the 23rd of December, I had a yearling heifer and a coav running on my land together. The cow was the property of defendant. The yearling had been running with the cow for some time. Breer and H. Malmanche placed the cow in my charge, at the same time informing me that she belonged to T v . Libenu. I value the heifer at £4..

Cross-examined by defendant. —It is customary to advertise stray cattle, but I knew the owner of the cow. It is also customary to impound stray cattle. Victor Narby gave evidence to the effect that he saw D. Libeau on the 23rd December, driving the cow and heifer off Magee's land. He valued the heifer, at £4. Michael Fahey, a lad in plaintiff's employ, swore to the heifer being the property of his employer's, and that it was out of a cow owned by plaintiff. The heifer, when a calf, broke out of the yard, and took to sucking defendant's cow. Defendant stated that he had been informed by several persons thatthe heiferwas out of his cow, and that as soon as the calf was let loose she ran to the cow and sucked her. One person had informed him that he saw a two-month calf and a heifer with the cow, and under the circumstances he claimed the heifer. He had been informed by plaintiff's brother-in-law that the heifer was his (defendant's) property. He held that it was not of very common occurrence to turn a yearling out without being branded. E. Staples deposed that he knew the cow, and saw her in company with a yearling and a calf. Mr. M ; Donald had informed him that the three were the property of defendant. D. Libeau deposed that he drove the cow and yearling off the main track near plaintiff's land, and on the way home the calf, which was rather wild, broke away. The calf was now at Morgan's. The Bench, in giving judgment, said that the weight of evidence showed that the heifer Avas Magee's property. On the other side, there was uncertainty of ownership—it was merely hearsay. Judgment for £4, the value of heifer, and costs. The claim for grazing would be disallowed, as plaintiff should have taken steps under the Cattle Trespass Ordinance to remove the cow. He should have impounded her if he ddi not want her on his land. There had been no contract entered into. The Court then adjourned.