DISTRICT COURT.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3199, 29 September 1881, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29

(Before His Honor Judge Kenny ) IASCELLES V. HELAN.nER. This was a claim for £28 4s, the amount of damages put upon sheep impounded by plaintiff. Mr Corn ford appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Lee for defendant. Mr Cornford, after opening the case, called Charles Helander, who, sworn, stated he was pound-keeper at Farndon, and had acted as such for three or four months. Remembered sheep being brought to the pound on the 6th of August by Montague Lascelles and another man. The man came and asked for the pound key, also for the loan of a dog. Witness told him there was a dog there if he could work it; the owner of the dog was not there. He went up the road, and met the sheep coming down. He kept the dog behind. Some of the sheep had just dropped their lambs, and others were just going to do so. It was about mid-day when the sheep arrived at the pound. The entries in the pound-book were in his handwriting. Montague Lascelles and the man gave him a description of the sheep, also the amount of the damages. He heard from Merritt that the sheep were his on the day they were impounded, between five and six o'clock. Merritt took the sheep out immediately, and took them away. He (witness) wrote the cheque produced at the time. The cheque was for £30 12? 6d, and the word " bearer" was struck out, and underneath was written, " this cheque paid under protest, and not negotiable until settled by a court of law." He wrote the whole of the writing on the cheque except the signature at Merritt's request. He received no other document from Merritt, nor any cash. By Mr Lee: He offered the cheque to Mr Lascelles. He offered it to Mr M. Lascelles twice. Two of the letters from plaintiff produced were delivered to him by Mr M. Lascelles, one by post. He replied to the last one. He was authorised by Merritt to offer £10 for the two weeks' grazing, and that amount he offered to Mr M. Lascelles at the time he brought the letter. Mr Lascelles refused to take a penny less than was claimed. ITo one gave him a written description of the sheep when they were brought to the pound. No smaller sum than £28 had ever been demanded by Mr Lascellee. The £20 was claimed in a lump sum. He understood he wae allowed to charge Id per head for trespass. Only a lump Bum of £20 was demanded of him. Mr M. Lascelles said he had only found out they were Merritt's sheep on the morning he impounded them. Mr Merritt asked him for a blank cheque, and told him to fill it up for the whole amount claimed. He filled it up, and Mr Merritt signed it. He also asked him to write the ■words in reference to paid under protest. To this witness demurred, but Merritt said, " Don't be afraid ; the matter will be brought before a court of law within a week, and I will pay all expenses." Re-examined by Mr Cornford: Mr M. Lascelles did not ask him if he (Lascelles) had to write anything when he brought the sheep. Did not remember him asking if there was anything to sign. Did not tell him there was anything to sign. He took down the description of the eheepfrom the dictation of Mr M. Lascelles, and the man v, to was with him. He never asked for any description of sheep impounded from anybody. He never had any particulars given him of how the sum of £20 was made up. He made up the amount of the driving fees from Mr M. Lascelles' dictation. He told Houlston that he could not make out the impounding fees from the Act. He had made an application to Mr Merritt for a guarantee for the amount he would have to pay, but he had not received it. He had not received his own pound fees. By the Court: In making the entries in the pound-book he followed the same practice that had been pursued in previous cases. He bad frequently asked Mr Merritt to sign the pound- book for delivery of the sheep. A. R. W. Lascelles, called, deposed he occupied as a tenant that land known as the football paddock. He paid £80 per annum to Sir Hardinge Gifford's agent. He was tenant at the time of the pounding of the sheep, and previously. He had been tenant since the Ist September, 1880. He saw sheep in the paddock on the 6th August. He made enquiries as to the owner, and was told by a man that he thought they were Merritt's. Hβ telegraphed from town to his son to impound the sheep, and put £20 damages on them. The paddock was locked up from the end of May for the purpose of feeding his horses during the winter. -There was eight weeks good feed in the paddock. It is 27 or 28 acres. He went to see the paddock after the 530 sheep had been impounded, and it was cleaned, not a particle of grass left. A stack in the paddock was partly eaten. He had been offered 30s per week for the paddock, and Mr Merritt had offered £2 per week since. There was about a ton of hay, value £4 10s, eaten. He had not been able to put an animal in the paddock since ; it was perfectly bare. He saw Mr Helander on the 6th of August; some of the sheep were in tfee stock-yard and some in the pound. He went to see the paddock, and then saw Helander If he had known the full damage done he would have asked more than £20. He told his son at the time that the driving fees appeared large. He saw Merritt on the same day, and something was said about the sheep. He (witness) said, " "What business have you to put your sheep into my paddock." Merritt replied, "I was drowned out by the flood, and could not let them die." He also said, " Of course I will pay you wh?t you want." He also said, " I saw your man, and told him I was going to put the sheep in, and he said you had better see Mr M. Lascelles, and Mr Montague was not about." The sheep •were in miserable condition, and many of them were just about lambincr; they were literally starving. He never heard of any cruelty in driving the sheep to the pound. It was only 260 yards from the paddock to the pound. Defendant had told him that Merritt had said he would see him through it. He had never beeD offered £10, and would not have taken it.

(Left Sitting.)