PALMERSTON -THURSDAY.

Feilding Star, Volume XV, Issue 281, 6 April 1894, Page 2

PALMERSTON -THURSDAY.

(Before District Judge Kettle.) A SHEEP CASE. D. Manson and others v. W. and H. V. Hammond ; claim i'llo, for alleged wrongful conversion of sheep. Mr Gaily for plaintiffs and Mr Cohen for defendants. The following jury was empanelled: — Messrs B. Chamberlain (foreman), J. H. Burmester, T. Martiu, and Chas. Grubb. Mr Gully, in opening the case for plaintiff, said the present action was brought to decide the ownership of a certain number of Bheep which the plaintiff alleges are his property, and which are in the possession of the defendant. The question to be considered by the jury was purely and simply that of proof of ownership. The circumstances under which the present claim arose wore as follows :—The plaintiff (Mr Manson) and the defendants are sheep farmers occupying adjacent stations some five or six miles from the town of Halcombe. During the years 1892 and 1893, particularly in the latter part of the year 1892, a considerable number of sheep wore missing from plaintiff's run, and during July, 1893, it was observed by persons in the employment of the plaintiff that apparently a substantial number of sheep of Mr Manson's were to be seen upon the run of the defendant. Mr M/iuson took advice upon the subject and lie was advised to go upon the run and endeavor to ascertain whether his sheep were there and in what number. It was also thought necessary for some person in authority to accompany him there in order to prevent a breach of the law taking place on one side or the other ; and accordingly Mr Manson (or persons representing j him), accompanied by Detective Herbert, went upou tho run in the early part of November, 189: i. The result was that then aud on a subsequent iuvestigation a certain number of sheep wore found, which were identified as Mr Mansou's property. The sheep found upon Mr Hammond's run and which were claimed by Mr Manson he would divide into three classes. In the first place two claHHes of sheep, called Hawke's Bay sheep, were identified beyond a doubt. Iv January, 1892, between five and six thousand sheep were purchased by Mr Manson from Mr Morrison, of Hawke's Bay, and delivered iv due course on the Waituna run at Stanway. They were marked with the Hawke's j Bay ear-mark, which could be identified, but after delivery the sheop were marked with Mr Mausou's car-mark and turned iuto sheep-proof paddocks. None of these sheep were sold by Mr Manson to Mr Hammond before the investigation of the latter's run took place in November, 1898, neither were any of them disposed of to any other person in the district, so that it was impossible for Mr Hammond to have purchased them. If the jury were satisfied that these sheep were kleofciiied q« Haiuzuoutl's, and did not bear the ear.mark of auy intervening person, it was for defendant to account in a rational manner how he got Into possession of them. The only question for the jury to decide was in reference to the ownership of tho sheep, further thau that they did uot wish to go, for certaiu reasons. Evidence was given in support of the claim by John Mansou aud Chas. Bridle (manager of tho Waituna station), and the Court then adjourned till noxt day. [PER PHKBS ASSOCIATION.j Palmebston N., This" Day. Owing to tho indisposition of Judge Kettle, tho District Court was adjourned to-day till the lUfch inst.