MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2064, 26 April 1907, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

DAMAGING A MAIZE CROP.

J. D. Robcke (Mr. T. Alston Coleman) proceeded against Thos. Bartlett, jun. (Mr. Blair) at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning, claim £9, for allowing his cattle to damage plaintiff’s maize crop. Plaintiff, in his evidence, stated that on two occasions in November defendant’s cattle entered his property and did damage complained of. The cattle, not. in from the road, i'orc--mr-tmeir- —*i> e fence. There were about three acres of maize about 15 inches high. The maize grew again but no crop was yielded. Had it been uninjured lie would have obtained about £8 per acre for tlie crop. In January they .came in frequently. A claim for/damages was sent to defendant in’ March. Defendant replied that lie would pay nothing as the crop was not worth £9, the amount claimed; -plaintiff would have to sue for it. He (defendant) had £SO to spend on the

case. AVitness estimated the damage at £9 per acre. By Mr. Blair: The fence could have done with some repairing. . Did not know if it were 37 years old. The second crop was weeded. About Bth April eight horses got through the gate. Received £1 from Mrs. Karaitiann. Did not ask Mr. Currie for £1 ;

he asked for 5s only, and got it. Asked Peter Te Han to pay £1 each for his five horses. Ho only joked when asking the latter for £1 each, hut he meant it when he asked that amount from Mrs. Karaitiana. By Air. Coleman: The fence was good enough to keep most cattle out, but defendant’s could get through anything. Allan John AVilson, farmer, of Muriwai, said he planted the maize crop, and if it came to maturity it would give about 80 bushels to the acre at 2s Gd per bushel, equivalent to £3O. Since November the crop was practically worthless. The stunted condition of the corn would be caused by the weeds. The fence was not a substantial one.

Air. Blair said nothing had been done to the fence lor 37 years, and to prove this called William Donaldson, who said that before November he had seen horses in the property. The cattle went straight through the wires, which wore slack. The posts were very loose; he erected tlio fence 37 years ago. Tho crop was neglected from the beginning. Air. Blair contended that as the fence was clearly not cattle proof, plaintiff could not recover anything. The fence should have been repaired. ■ Air. Coleman maintained that the cattle trespassed along the road and went through a fence, which up to that time was good enough. His AVofship said there was no doubt that plaintiff suffered to some extent from tho trespass of the cattle, but tho land was not properly fenced, and therefore he could not recover.

Plaintiff would he nonsuited, no costs being allowed. Tho same plaintiff proceeded against Pera AVaa'ka (Air Blair) to recover £1 for a similar trespass.

Plaintiff stated that on 6tli March defendant’s cow entered his property

and witness retained possession o: the cow. Plaintiff’ asked for £1 foi

tho damage done, but defendant had not the money, and promised to pay in a week. Plaintiff would not deliver the cow without an 1.0.TJ. or £l. Ho said lie would sign, but put

the paper in his pocket and went quietly away. Next morning he returned, offering to sign it, and did so. Although witness requested payment three times, the money was never paid. By Air. Blair: Defendant did not offer 2.S 6<l. Was certain that defendant signed the paper. Elizabeth Robcke, wife of plaintiff, corroborated hor husband’s evidence. Charles Robcke. son of plaintiff, identified defendant in Court ; he knew him for six years. He recognised defendant’s signature on the 1.0. U. Air. Blair said that the defence

would lie that defendant denied ever seeing the document until yesterday morning. Evidence would be called to show his writing, and independent testimony would bo obtained. Pera AVaaka, defendant, admitted that his cow was in plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff demanded £l, but witness offered 2s 6d ; this was reHe told plaintiff that failing delivery of the cow he would sue. Thereupon lie gave up he cow. Did not see the 1.0. U. until yesterday morning iai court. Two letters signed by defendant when he was chairman of the Maori Health Council were produced, and his AVorship remarked that the writing apoared somewhat different each time. To the question as to whether he read a paper at his own home, he replied that ho wanted to know who else was there. Charles Ferris, interpreter, said he knew Pera AA'aaka’s writing in letters received from him. Judging by his writing ,as ho (witness) knew it, the signature on the 1.0. U. was somewhat unlike defendant’s writing. The AV. was entirely different. His signature is P. H. AVaaka, and that on the document is Pera AA’aaka. Air. Blair said that his AV. was not angular as in the 1.0. U.; it was curved. , , ' , Air. Coleman said that by the do*

cumonts it seemed that defendantdid not always write the same knndwri in<r. There was no indication tnat Robcke relented and lot the cow go in the morning for nothing. unreasonable to suppose that tatjici,| mother, and son would como into Court and commit deliberate perjury His Worship was inclined to think defendant did sign the document. Ho could not think that jilaintiff, wile, and son would come and commit deliberate perjury. Judgment would he for plaintiff lor amount claimed, and costs £1 3s.