RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume III, Issue 163, 26 February 1864, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TUESDAY, 23rd February. [Before J, Curling, Esq., R.M.; G. S. Cooper, R.il. ; & M. Fitzgerald, J.Pi] Harding v. Rich. William Rich was charged with branding certain cattle, the property of John Harding, without his consent. John Harding, on oath, stated—About three months ago I missed a working bullock ; shortly jifter I missed another working bullock. I then missed a cow with calf at her side, also a steer, about 18 or 20 months old. I made every enquiry about them amongst my neighbors, and having heard that Mr. Tanner "had sold some cattle to Mr. Rich, I wrote to Mr. R. to enquire whether the bullock (the only one I had then missed) was amongst the cattle he had bought: I received no answer to that letter. I was subsequently told by one of xMr. Stokes’shepherds that he knew that cattle had been delivered on that occasion to Mr. Rich that were not Mr. Tanner’s. In consequence of that information I afterwards went to the Ahuriri plains and looked at Mr. Rich’s cattle ; and amongst them I found the cow and the two young ones, that is, the calf and the steer that I had missed. I found that they had been recently branded with a brand that was strange to me ; Mr, Rich informed me that it was his brand, and also that he had bought them of Thomas Tanner. I, in company with Mr. K., have since seen them. I could not find the bullocks. The cattle in question were running on the Ruataniwha plains at the time they were lost. Mr. Tanner’s cattle frequently run with mine; it was a mutual understanding between us that such should be the case, as our lands adjoin. The two young ones were branded with my brand, but the cow had Mr Meredith’s brand on her. The brands on the young ones were unusually plain and distinct; they were both branded very young, and as they grew the brands grew with the growth of the cattle; and be-, came very large ; the steer was branded on both shoulders with my brand, JH conjoined. I know Mr. Tanner’s brand. His own brand is a star, he has also some branded with a D, and some with a P. Mr. Tanner is well acquainted with my brand. My cattle are not ear-marked. Mr. Tanner’s are. I bought from Mr. Meredith between 200 and 300 —branded none of them which had his brand on them. His brand is a stroke in the cheek. I frequently mentioned to Mr. T. that I had lost cattle, and asked if he had seen any. Last week, through Mr. Taylor, solicitor, informed Mr. Tanner that I had discovered these cattle, and he sent me a verbal message by Mr. Taylor, that he had not sold any of my cattle to Mr. Rich, and that ho defied me to prove that he had done so. Mr. Rich, in his defence, stated that he had bought the cattle in question from Mr. Tanner, and paid for them, thinking Mr. Tanner was the owner of them. They were counted out to him in his yard amongst them, a mixed mob. Case dismissed.