SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3100, 25 January 1873, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS,. This Day. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Chapman, and a Special Jury.) M’Come v. Low.—ln this action, plaintiff sought to recover L 2,000 damages for alleged false imprisonment in August last, and L r soo special damages for loss of trade in consequence, Mr Janies Smith, with Mr Wilson appeared for plaintiff, and M r Barton, with Mr Haggitt, for defendant. T, Oager said he had been twelve months in the neighborhood of Bla ks, was employed by plaintiff, and knew the paddocks in which plaintiff’s sheep were. During the whole of the time be did not see any of Low s sheep in Lisk’s or the other paddocks. He took the sheep he killed between the 9th and ISbh of August from Lusk’s paddock. These included the twenty-one sheep. He knew the sheep well, because they not only had the O brand on, but also a cross on the loin The latter was particularly Mr Glassford’s brand. William U. Bourko said he was manager of the Bank of the New South Wales at Black-, and knew plaintiff. He had an account at .the Bank in August last. [Counsel proposed tq examine witness as to plaintiff’s character, but was opposed.] Tbiji concluded plaintiff’s case. Thomas King Weldon, Commissioner of Police, said he knew ex-Sergeant Lynch. Lynch left the force of bis own accord, and was recommended for good conduct and ability as an officer. He gathered this fact from the records. William Anderson Low, the defendant, said on the morning of the 9th of Inly, plaintiff called on him at the station. tiff said he was sorry that some of his sheep brought from Glassfonl had wandered on to Omakao station. He asked how many, and plaintiff said, “They ail have got away ; I was unable to keep them. He then said that he had heard complaints fiom his shepherd at Blacks to the effect that he had a great deal of trouble in trying to keep those sheep of the run. Plaintiff replied, “ I have clone my best; 1 engaged a man at LI a week to look after them.” He asked the name of the man, and the reply was, Morrisy ; also, that Morrisy was not a shepherd, but was working out a debt he owed plaintiff. He remarked that it wss too bad of plaintiff to have sheep running at large without a proper shephor d to look after them, and that his shepherd had more trouble than he otherwise would have had. He told him at the same time that ho bad beqn informed that jdaietj# fcad bought the pijeej* witfc the

idea of letting them mix with the sheep on the run, and further that he had a'lowe'i them to stray into Mr Glassford’s flock intentionally, and was fined for it. Plaintiff replied, 44 That is true ; I am sorry for it,” and then e?plained that he had had the sheep ho bought from Glassford in the agricultural paddocks, at Blacks, for some time ; that they had eaten off all the stubble, and that therefore he had taken them to other paddocks at Tiger Dill, on Glassford’s side of the Manuheiikia River, and also to save the risk of their straying on to defendant’s run. Plaintiff also said that a dog got amongst them there, and drove them o\er the fence among Glassford’a sheep. After he got them out from Glassford’s sheep again, he took them back to Blacks Flat. There, in consequence of a heavy Kail of snow and want of feed and shelter, he was forced to let them go on to the ranges. He then asked defendant what ho would do in the matter, and defendant replied, “ I do not know until I have found out how many have wandered, but I thinWt will be necessasyto prosecute fortrespass, as Glassfordhad done. ” Plaintiff entreated him not to do so, as he was a poor man. and nearly ruined through customers at Blacks “ sloping” and not paying for their meat. Ho then reminded plaintiff of complaints made by the shepherds of trespass, and driving cattle and sheep off the run, and of plaintiff having taken part in those acts. He asked how it was that there were five rams with the old ewes when on the other side of the river, and plaintiff replied, 44 1 could not help them joining j and as my deg was a bad one, and the sheep were weak, L did not see how I could separate them.” He then asked him if he had not taken away thirty head of cattle from near the Serpentine Creek, and if he had not been trying to break down the partition fence in order to pass them over Campbell and Low’s run. Plaintiff denied this, but after a while said, “There were only nineteen head.” He then pointed out that plaintiff had a right to remove stock, without notice, and plaintiff replied, “ I know that 1 was very rash, but I was in a hurry.” He alluded to several injurious rumors regarding plamtiff’s character, and plaintiff said, 14 do not believe them, I am a down-right honest man ” After talking the matter over, he finally agreed to buy the sheep, and asked plaintiff how many he had bought from Glassford. The reply was. that originally he received from 600 to 650 from Glassford, but that by killing, and other means, ho had reduced them to about 160, but was not quite certain as to the exact number. Ho then said, 44 well as there is some doubt as to the number, we will call it 200.” Plaintiff replied, 44 1 will guarantee 180 if you will pay me now.” He then said thathecouldnotinany case pav until after the sheep were mustered. Plaintiff then signed the agreement produced and went away. He heard nothing more of the sheep or M'Comb until the Saturday night before ho laid the information against him. It was reported to him then that the head shepherd at Blacks had seen twentyone of the sheep sold by M'Couib to Low, in M'Comb’s yard, and that M 4 Corah was killing them. On that morning Constable M'Gann came to the station, and reported that M‘Comb was killing sheep, alleged to be defendant’s property. He told M'Gann that he was going to Blacks to inquire into the matter, and also that there might be more than 200 sheep on the run belonging to plaintiff, and that he could not, according to the agreement, claim more than that number. M’Gann then said, “M'Comb told me he had sold you the whole of the sheep,” and also that he thought there was a good case against M 4 Comb. He then wont to ( lyde and laid the information, which led to M’Comb’s arrest, and subsequent examination before a magistrate. Subsequently, he saw plaintiff twice. On the first occasion ho did not offer him the rangership of the run, and the remainder of the conversation as stated by plaintiff was a fabrication. He did not use the words to plaintiff, 44 If you don’t settle with me I will be your enemy.” Plaintiff’s version of what was said on the second occasion at the station was a lie from beginning to end. (Left sitting.)