BLACKS.

Dunstan Times, Issue 915, 31 October 1879, Page 3

BLACKS.

On the 21st inat, at Ophir, the following case (important alike to the runholdcr and farmer) was heard before Jackson Kcddell, Esq., R. M. :- Bell v. Glass.--This was an information laid on behalf of Sir F. D. 801 l against Joseph Glass That the defendant on the 6th September last “ was found unlawfully disturbing cattle on land known as Ida Valley Station, in tbe Provincial District of Otago, in the occupancy of the said Francis Dillon Bell without the consent of such occupier contrary, &c.” Mr F. J. Wilson appeared for complainant, and Mr Blond for defendant. Mr Wilson in opening the case said, the information was laid under the provisions of “ The diseased Sheep Act, 1876,” which validated “ The Cattle and Sheep Ordinance, 1875 ” of Otago, section 66 of which reads as follows : ‘ ‘ Every person who shall drive or remove or attemptto drive and remove any cattle or sheep belonging to him or under his charge from any land in the occupancy oi another or cause such cattle or sheep to

bo driven or removed therefrom without the consent of the occupier of such land, or who shall be found diatmbingor harrassing any cattle or sheep on any such land shall be liable in a penalty of not more than one hundred pounds for every such offence.” Aud that the word “ occupier ” vas interpreted in the Ordinance to include the agent, bailiff, or servants of the person having the use or occupation of the land ; that the Act whilst repeals 1 as to sheep was still law as regarded cattle, aud that the annoyance to the complainant by persons coming on to the run, and thereby interfering with the quiet of the flocks had become so great that this information was laid, not from any personal motive, but to vindicate rights. John M‘Lood (complainant’s shepherd) swore to seeing defendant and two others on the day'named riding about the run, going to and inspecting three mobs of cattle, and he swore positively that the defendant joined in driving along for a considerable distance one lot of cattle. Thomas Denuiston (complainant’s manager) swore that he was in sole charge of the station, and that complain mt did not interfere with him ; that he had not given defendant any authority or permission to go after cattle, and produced a letter from the complainant to the effect that he had not done so. For the defence it was submitted that occupation had not been sufficiently proved but this was overruled. Defendant on being sworn denied having driven cattle, and sai l it was one of the others, but admitted being with them whilst inspecting, aud that the driving was under his instruction. The R. M. in giving judgment sail it did not appear that any serious damage had been done, but rather that the case was brought as a test ease, and to warn settlers that they could not act, as it appeared they were in the habit of doing. Ho considered the offence proved, and lined defendant 10s and Ousts.