RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2716, 31 October 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. Brown v. Ross and M Intyre.—This was an information by the complainant Brown that on the 24th October last the defendants did wilfully commit damage to certain property at Anderson’s Bay, by pulling down a fence, value two pounds. Mr Stout for the complainant, Mr Stewart for the defence. The evidence of the complainant went to shew that on the day in question he was repairing a fence to prevent Ross’s horses from coming on to land occupied by him. Having received certain information, he watched the fence, but being a short time away, on returning he found it was thrown down and the defendants were on the road. He then alarmed his father and brother. His brother went one road, and his father another. M'lutyrc had bis coat oil', and his clothes were covored with mud. He saw Ross afterwards near bis store. He had purposed opening a store at Anderson’s Bay, and had offered to buy Ross’s store. He afterwards saw M'lutyre, who asked him why he accused him (MTutyre) with pulling down the fence. Witness replied because he saw him and Ross near the fence. A] *lntyre said he would bet that Ross was in bed. They then went to Ross’s store, into which MThtyro entered, but did not return George Brown, tbe brother of the informant, gave evidence pretty much to the same

effect. J. Haddon, shoemaker, said be saw Ross about a quarter to eleven o’clock that night. Isabel M‘Donald said at a quarter to eleven o’clock he was standing at the bar door, and also an hour afterwards when George Brown came up. She detailed the conversation concerning Ross and described the quarrel and a challenge to fight on the part of M ‘lntyre, as well as his being without hat and having dirty boots Adam JNicol, builder at Anderson’s Bay the employer of M‘ln tyre, saw him after nine o’clock on the evening of the 24th October He knew section 2S in the township of Silveitm It was once in his posses ion as a tenant. The section had been lying open until lately. Very few peoples’ cattle had not been on it, for it was laid out in buildiug sites, and was regarded as a common. He put up the fence on it to prevent his horse wandering on the road, and to keep cattle off it The material was ten years oW man could now make a fence of it • the wind would blow it down I n the district of Vnderson’s Bay rails were sold at 6d each, and posts at 7d, and in the fence neither post and rail worth the name would be f >und. M Intyre was a very peaceful well inclined man In reply to a question from the Bench, the witness said with the exception of two posts he put up the fence ; about a week before the 24th October four posts and three or four rails were standing and twelve or thirteen rails on the ground.’ He had seen it since the 24th but in a different position. P ar fc was l y i n „ 0 _ the ground, and about two panels standing r i Brown, father of the complainant, saw M‘lntyre at about twenty minutes to eleven o’clock near his garden, who told him it was well he was an old man, or he would have done for him ; he had as much right to the section as he (witness) or his son had. For the defence, Mr Stewart asked that the case should be dismissed on the evidence adduced, as it failed to connect the accused with pulling do wn the fence, but that there were good grounds for disputing Brown’s right to occupy the ground, and that the do fendants considered that they 'had a fair right to pull down the fence. He further objected that the prosecutor Brown being an infant—that is, not being twenty-one years old could not prosecute in a case involving a penalty. Mr Stout replied, and main, tamed that an infant could lay an information in a criminal process, and that occupation only needed to be proved, not ownership of laud, in such case. For the defence, J, A. Rickie, dairyman, Auder.on’s ay, knew the section, aud said it had been a sort of common for eight or nine years. About for r years ago it was in Mr Hildreth’s possession,' tie considered the fence so rotten that the wind would blow it down. This closed the case for the defence. His Worship could not see that defendants had any reasonable ground for belief that they had a right to pull down the fence; and as plaintiff had sworn he was of age, he must conclude he had a right to prosecute. Damages Is, and costs of Court.