A CROP OF PUMPKINS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2282, 29 August 1908, Page 2

A CROP OF PUMPKINS.

DISPUTED OWNERSHIP.

Hearing was taken by Mr. AY. A. Barton S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning, in the case in which a native named Hemi AVlmkarau proceeded against Stephen O’Sullivan to recover £lO, being £5 damages for the removal of a crop of pumpkins from defendant’s land at Ormond, and £5 damages for trespass on the same land. Air. Blair appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. T. A. Coleman for the defendant. Mr. Blair outlined tlio case for tlie plaintiff, and called

Gilbert Ernest- Jones, farmer, of Ormond, who said lie had leased part of the Waituhi block from the plaintiff, and sublet about two acres back to him for growing vegetables, at 22s Gd per acre. Plaintiff paid tho rent, and the land had been used for growing the supply of vegetables tor tho pah. A crop was grown on it this year and about the 2Gth Juno he saw defendant gathering pumpkins on it, having lowered the wire of the fence to get in. The gate was about five chains from where defendant got through, and was nearer to the Maori wliarc than where defendant was. Defendant packed the pumpkins across the river in ea-clcs. ..Witness ■asked defendant why ho was talcing tho pumpkins, and ho replied that he had bought them from the natives. Witness know the pumpkins belonged to plaintiff who was then in town. A week later plaintiff asked witness who had taken his pumpkins, and in consequence of their conversation witness wrote a letter to defendant. About twenty sacks of pumpkins were taken to the value of about 6s per sack. To Mr Coleman: There were three or four owners of the Waituhi block and other natives were interested in the cultivation of the two acres. He did not go near tho gate, nor did ho see defendant interfere with the fence.

Hemi Whalcarau, plaintiff, said that ho paid the rent of the two-acre block, and grew kumaras, pumpkins, cabbages, etc., on it for tho natives’ food. In June there was a fine crop of pumpkins, but they were not there now, and he did not sell or authorise any person to remove them. They were planted by witness and another native named Mold, and lie missed thorn on the Bth July. Witness took Jones’ letter to the defendant, who said, on readjng the letter, that lie did not know witness. The value of the pumpkins was about £4 10s. To Mr Coleman: Mr Jones first valued tho pumpkins at £2. Mold was his younger brother, and he was positive that he had helped to plant tho vegetables.

Mol' l Jainatea, brother of the plaintiff. gave corroborative evidence, stating that he had done most of the planting of the pumpkins. He did not sell the pumpkins to defendant. There was a desire on defendant’s part to least another part of the block and in connection with this defendant gave him 6s as an earnest.

The money was not a loan ; be gave no receipt, and had never been asked by defendant to return it. He did not tell defendant lie could take away tho vegetables from tile twoaero block in payment of the 6s. Stephen O’Sullivan, laborer defendant, said that lie. lout Molii 6s four or five months ago, but had not been repaid. Molu had, however, agreed to let him have the pumpkins’ instead of the money. He, later on, took the pumpkins, and sold them ill the auction mart for 17s 6d gross. To Mr Blair: He thought that Mold was the solo owner of tho vegetables. When ho took the pumpkins be knew that the natives were attending the Land Court.

His Worship, in giving judgment, said that it was quite clear to him that the pumpkins were the property of the plaintiff, and no one else 1 had any right to dispose of them. If the statements of the defendant regarding Mold could bo substantiated, he had a legal remedy. Judgment would be for plaintiff, on the first count £2. and for trespass £l, with £8 11s 6d costs.