Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SUPREME COURT.

Wednesday, November 5. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Chapman and a Special Jury.) WHITE V. M'KELLAR. David M'Kellar, one of the defendants, was cross-examined by Mr Barton at some length. He considered that he was entitled to joint ownership in the whole run until a division had been made. Seeing that they refused to come to au arrangement, and that he had been occupyingjthe worst part of the run, he did not see any good reason why he should not go and occupy a better portion of it. Sometime before the arbitration, Mr Calder ashed him not to interfere with the plaintiffs. That was in the year ISG9. Witness then left the matter in the hands of Calder, who represented his brother. He denied ever having any idea of driving plaintiffs inbq the Bankruptcy Court, and thereby get possession of their run. They (plaintiffs) were very unpopular in the neighborhood. They lived a life of poverty and seclusion. John M‘Kellar deposed to having told plaintiffs that they had brought cattle on to the other end of the run, and at the same time offered to take which ver end they (plaintiffs) chose. They refused to settle the matter in that way, stating that defendants had no right to the run at all. He then proposed that they should tix a boundary, and he understood them to assent to the Bond River being fixed. He afterwards heard that the Whites turned the his shepherd out of the hut. Witness subsequently spoke to Mr iaylor White about turning the shepherd out of the hut. Not having succeeded in obtaining any satisfaction, he (witness) told them they would not be allowed to have the use of the sheds for shearing. Witness and his party afterwards vi ent to the sheds, and found plaintiffs with their sheep there. Witness believed he said to White he had acted very childishly. 'Hie reply made was that, as they could not get the shed they would resort to other means to get their rights! They drove their sheep away. There was no pretence whatever for saying that the sheep were driven away by defendant’s part}', Hugh M’lntjre gave corroborative evidence. (Left sitting.)

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18731105.2.11

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Evening Star, Issue 3342, 5 November 1873, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
367

SUPREME COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3342, 5 November 1873, Page 2

SUPREME COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3342, 5 November 1873, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert