MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2204, 30 May 1908, Page 1

MAGISTERIAL.

FRIDAY, MAY 28, 1008. (Before Mr. W. A.. Barton S.M.) A first offender for drunkenness was convicted r*id fined tlio amount of liis bail, £l.

ALLEGED THEFT.

Albert Edward Liolitwarlc and Norman Marlow, woro charged .with having on the lOtli of April, stolen a sot of liarness, value £5, from'the dwelling of D. G. Robertson, AVhataupoko. Mr H. Bright appeared for Liolitwark, and Mr T. Alston Coleman for Marlow. _ Dotectivo Rawlo conducted tho prosecution, and oalled ■

Dalrymplo Guthrio Robertson, who stated that on April 10th, ho 'put the harness in his buggy shed about S'.Bo p.m. On going to get, thesfcxi-efi, morning lie found breeching, , breastplate' and traces •missing, and also tho riding bridle. Witness identified tho various articles produced as his property, withthe excoption of tho reins and tho hit of tho riding bridlo, tho headstall only boing his property. AVitness valued the harness' at about £5.

Miriam Charlotte Liclitwark, wife of one of tho -accused, and residing at Mangapapa, stated that tho accused Marlow had boon living at lior house from the beginning of March, but had not paid any board. Ho had only done about five days’ -work since living at her house.

To Mr. Coleman: During the first period of his stay ho used to come to tho houso ill tho daytimo and go away at night. After that ho was not always there at night but was there in tho morning. AVitness considered that Marlow had only slept away from tho house for about a fortnight. Sydney Rawlo, detective, said that on tho 12th of tho present month in company with Sergt. Hutton, he saw the articles of harness (produced) in the cowshed of tho premises of the accused Liclitwark. On tho 21st of tho present month ho found tho hit (produced) in tho same - place. On the 28th of tho month accused were charged with the present offence. Liclitwark, when charged made no reply. At tho time of tne theft Marlow was living with Liclitwark. This concluded tho case for tho prosecution, and Air Coleman submitted that there was no caso for him to answer on behalf of Marlow. There was nothing to show that liis client was in any way connected with the alleged theft. Both accused pleaded not guilty, and reserved their defence, ana were committed for trial at the next sitting of tho Supreme Court to bo hold in Gisbomo. Bail was allowed, accused in £SO each, or two suicties of £25 each. CLAD! REGARDING A FENCE

This case, in which Robert Siuton (Air. Stock), proceeded against H. E. Kont (Air. Blair), for tlio recovery of £9 7s 9d, and which had been adjourned overnight, was continued yesterday morning. The plaintiff, Robert bin ton, having concluded his evidence, Frederick Sintou, a sou of the plain till' ,\ stated that ho knew tho defendant’s property at Tmiroto. He took sonic sheep along the fence, which was in very bad repair. Ihe wires wore all very slack, and about 20 sheep got through without any difficulty, and witness did not consider that it was of any uso to keep 6heep back. About twclvo niontlis ago, witness saw sheep belonging to the defendant on the -road. To Air. Blair: AVitness saw none of defendant's-sheep when -his (witness’) sheep got through tlio fence. Ho had seen tho wire hanging down to the ground for lialf-a-chain m places, and -had- also seen men repairing tho fence. Had not seen defendant’s sheep on the road for nearly twelvo months. Re-examined by Air. Stock: It was over twelve months since lie had seen any person' repairing the fence. James Berry, slieepfarmer, Tiniroto, said that ho knew the property for about 17 years. He had had occasion recently to examine portion of defendant’s fehco. Parts of it were very bad, and in places from 7 to 10 yards were down. In his opinion, the fence was not sheep-proof all through. AVitness tried the wires opposite plaintiff’s, and found that sheep could get through easily. To Mr. Blair: He did not notice any 6lieep near where he had tried the xvirea. There were sheep inside the fence. AA’itness knew most of defendant’s dividing fences. In addition to the fence, high fern -and manuka would prevent stock from getting out, AVitness did not reinemaer having seen defendant’s slieep on the road. Tho road ran- right into Tiniroto, and there was no gate or obstacle oil it. Plaintiff told witness that if defendant had paid him for two lambs, ho would not have brought this action. Re-examined by Air. Stock: The fern and manuka were not growing near the places where the sheep could get through the fence. This concluded the evidence for the plaintiff and Air. Blair addressed the Court for the defence, contending that under section 23 of the Act, it must he shown that the defendant had adopted means to avail himself of the pl-aitn-tiff’s fence-. Tho fact wa§- not disputed that tho fence was an old one and in had repair, but the defendant claimed that it was good enough for his purpose. The fence had not been repaired this year as lie bad had no sheep in the paddock. Henry Edward Kent, in reply to Air. Blair, stated that the fence could not be considered a good one, but-it sufficed for his purposes. He. did not always have stock in tho paddocks fronting the road. If he put sheep in, he liad the fence attended to. This had been done seven or eight times during tho past three years. Ihe place where tho wires are slack is iviltero the forice runs through a swamp, and whore the water ' was from six inches to a foot in depth, li was not correct for the plaintiff, to say that liis (witness’) sheep often got out on the road. If it were so he would be a considerable loser. During the last three years -lie had had strange sheep in liis paddocks. AVitness could only remember one occasion on which lie saw his sheep on tlm road during tlio last twelve months. He had adopted no means to make plaintiff’s fence beneficial to, h.im. The fence was reasonably good enough to keep his stock in, and lie got no benefit whatever from plaintiff’s fence. Both Alessrs. Spence and AVailis had had sheep in his paddock and witness did not hear 0 f any oi their .sheep getting out- He had seen tho plaintiff’s stock oil the road twice or three times during the .year, but thev did not get into his (witness ) paddocks.. g tock; T j [e f encc would bo sheep-proof when he was using it, but tlio wires would not stand a very tight strain. AVitness had been runniiif stock all tlio summer in two of

the paddocks fronting tile road. Jlo spout his time 1 airly equally between .liis places at Alakaraku and Timroto. AVhen Mr. AVallis’s sheep woro m tho paddock thoro was, not much feed in it. Cattio and horses of tho plaintiff’s woro occasionally on tlio road, but no sheep. Re-examined by Mr. Blair: Tlio paddock referred to had been shut up all tho summer, 110 was now patching up tho fence, as ho was going to turn sheep in that paddock. AValtor AVhite, shceprarmcr, Tiniroto, stated that his property ban behind that of tlio plaintiffs. Jlo thought that parts of defendant's fence would stop sheep, but there woro also parts that would'not. AA’itlioss described tho position of the swamp, where the fence was very bad. Ho had'..'seen defendant’s employees’ repairing tho fence, prior to sheep being put in thoro. Witness had seen’ defendant’s slieep on tho road about half a dozen times during the last llnoO'yeais, but never more than six at a timo. Defendant did not use the road as part of Ill’s paddocks. He remembered defendant putting about 800 wethers in one paddock along the road, and asking him (witness) to put any hack in tlio paddock that might got out oil tho road, AVitness had no, pocasion to do this as tho’ sheep did not got out. Ho had seen plaintiff’s stock on tho road, tie did not think that plaintiff’s fence was in any way benefical to defendant. At this stage tho Court adjourned / for lunch.

After the adjournment, corroborative evidence was given was given by E. AV .AI. AVailis and J. Leslie, and both counsel addressed tho Court for tho defence.

His AVorship hold that he was not satisfied that there was sufficient- evidence to show that! the plaintiff’s fence had been of any practical benefit to tho defendant. Judgment would be for the defendant with costs Bs, witnesses expenses £7 18s 9d, and solicitors fee £1 Is.