RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1108, 15 February 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

OAMPTOWN. (Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M.) Margaret Scanlon was charged under disorderly, conduct at No Town. There were several similar charges previously brought against the defendant. On this occasion, Constable Jefferies found her wandering about the streets at No Town' in a half-naked state. The Magistrate sentenced the defendant to three months' imprisonment at, Westport. A miner, from No Town, was fined 20s, or in default 24 hours' imprisonment, for being drunk and disorderly at that place. During the hearing of the charge, SeniorConstable M'Myn discovered that the defendant was wanted on two separate charges of absconding from, his bail in the County of Westland. His Worship directed him to be forwarded to Greymouth to be dealt with by the authorities there. ; CIVIL CASES. J, .fr.fleslop y. James Molloy. — This was an action for trespass — damages were laid at L 25. On 81st December last the defendant's, cows broke through, the plaintiff's fences and destroyed a portion of his ; crops. The defence was that the plaintiffs fences were not substantial- enclosures within, the meaning; of.the; Act. and' that the cattle of, James Devery also broke into the crops arid did the alleged damage. It was shown that ; between the time, the cattle out of Molloy's broke through the fences and the time the plaintiff had the damage done to the crop assessed, Devery's* cattle had been through the fences, and they might hay e done the injury. It was stated for the plaintiff that Molloy's cattle are "steeplechasers," arid that even five-railed fences would not be an impediment to their progress if they hat! an object in getting to the other side of them. On the other hand, it was contended the plaintiffs fence was only 2ft or 18in high and composed of brushwood. The law of the case was ably .argued bin both sides, and the Magistrate held that there was a trespass committed, but that the plaintiff was to blame in riot complying wititti'e Act by erecting a substantial fence. The evidence as to the damage done was not clear, and it was admitted on , both sides that other cattle than those of the defendant was among plaintiffs crops, and might have inflicted the injury complained of. The owners of cattle had a right to commonage, and it, was the business of occupiers of land to erect ordinarily substantial fences if they expected to keep cattle out of their enclosures; The agriculturists would be protected from trespass as long as they made reasonable efforts to protect their own pro* perty, but owners of stock grassing on crown lands must not be discouraged in following a legitimate business. A verdict would be for the plaintiff for trespass for threepence per head for ten head of cattle, amounting to 2s 6d. The costs to be divided. Mr. Guinness appeared for the plaintiff, arid Mr Perkins for the defendant. ; A number of unimportant cases were disposed of, and the Court adjourned." ~~ • ■ i