MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 23 February 1923, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

FRIDAY, FEB. 23. (Before W. Meldrum. Esq.. S.M.i RESERVED JUDGMENT. His Worship gave his reserved judgment in the ease of E. J. Marshall (Mr Murdoch) v Mrs Jane Baird (Mi 1 ntorson) claim for i’los for loss ot a hull. Judgment was given for defendant with costs. DEBT CAKES. Stephens Bros ..Mr Elcock) v. IU Count. Claim Us Sd. Judgment for plaintiff with costs ,s. M. McGnvin (Air Elcock) v. A. L. Eamiltoii, claim CIO. Judgment lot plaimilf with costs 31s. M. Mr-Cttvitt (Mr Elcock) v. H• Jones, claim CIO Ids. Judgment lor plaintiff with costs L’2 14s. A DEFENDED CASK. E. J. Singer (Mr Floor,\S i. IU Wliiley (.Mr Murdoch) claim for one heifer. Mr Elcock led evidence as follows:--Fred J. Singer gave evidence that he bred the heifer mentioned in the statement of claim. It was J years 01-l. Me bred her for 3J months at home and l|,eii turned it out on crown land-. I den ti lied it l,y the ear mark in the right ear. Eater when about 12 months old again saw it and easily recognised it. About a year later again saw il and then it and another pHindi hide iu the left ear. About November last saw the heifer in Whilcy’s paddock with three other beasts. In Dcto Wliiley ami asked for it to be turned out. lie refused to do so until lie lleT examined it's ear marks. Wliiley did not half I elide hi the time that it was witness' heifer. Throe months later witness went up to examine the animal. W’as positive ii was the earmark of the animal, ami rcee nised the animal by other marks. Wliiley claimed ike heifer as his own. To Mr Murdoctli -Had no registered ear-mark or brand, and did nut keep •il in a fenced paddock. W hen uit ness and Const. McNulty examined the heifer in December, the marks pro- j ■ lured (Whilcy’s registered brand) I were not on the beast. If Mr Neville stated the marks were on the boast j for a considerable time lie would be sutislied the beast was not his. He fold Wliiley thai the heifer had Whilcy’s punch Imlc in its left ear. The

second cut on the right ear could only be in a few necks. Also the punch hole in the le.lt ear had not been ill for more than I) months. Alexander Gumming, a lad of 17. deposed he resided at Kauieri. lie knew Singer's cattle well, lie held I lie calf

ivl,on Singer oar-marked it. Again saw and recognised the heifer in Wliiluy's paddock. He was certain it was Singer's heifer. San the animal again ■I day.

To Air Murdoch Could nut say 111 beast he. saw had b"tli Singer’s am Whilev's marks on it.

Const. .McNulty gave evidence that Mr Whilev calk'd him to inspect a heifer he bad. Saw the oar-mark. Wliiley claimed iho animal. For the defence Mr Murdoch led the following;

Rolit. Whilev doposed lie was a farmer and sawmiller. The ,-ar-nuirk produced was his registered mark. The heifer in question was in the yard at his home. It belonged to witness. Singer first claimed ii previous to Christmas. AYitness ..aid if il had witness' car-mark' il was his and that was the end of ii. ff it did not then lie could hate it. Ringer said his mark wa~ a figure I cut out of the Arrangorl to go with Singer some Saturday to inspect, but Singer dai not go. The beast had bis own mark and not Singer’s. Bought the heifer off' Mrs Radotnsky when about 9 months old. Earmarked her as soon

as I,ought. AalueJ the animal at £■ |ll~. The earmaik 1 1 :- been mi the

animal for a],out 2; years. To Mr E.leeeh ■-Remembered b'.iyii,;-; two calves off' Mrs Radmnsky. Wil-m-s was eros. -examined at some length as to previous diff er,on rmher residents. What Singer and ( iimming sa.i'l of the interview m the paddock was net true. Had bought five others since from .Mrs Rad .m. i [t was necessary Lo closely examine the ear to see the marks owing to the growth of hair. Mrs Margaret Wliiley gave evidence that the heifer belonged to Wliiley. It had two nicks in the right ear at tile top and a hole in the left. The m ■ had been there since I,ought over two years ago; from Airs Radmnsky. Airs Alary Radmnsky deposed she resided at Kauieri and sold a heifer to Wliiley. Saw it yesterday in a. padduel,. Ricked it out from 1107 others. That was the one she sold to him. To Mr Elcock Stic was a sister of plaintiff. Was not the besi of friends. AFTERNOON SITTING. The Court adjourned r.t i p.m. am! resumed at 2.10 p.m. ( hnrles Samuel Neville deposed lie v.: s Inspector of Stock at H"k itil-m. Saw Singer who explained the marks i'll the heifer. Went out to Whilev’s the previous day am! examined the heifer. Found two fore lots out ot one ear and a punch ho! •in the other. Does not coincide with what Singer stated in any way. The one mark is half an inch away from the other. The beast, by the marks, '"as Ml ii levs, it was about three years old. Tii Air Elcock AA'arts were quite common in young cattle, but they drop olf in older cattle. Thomas ChesYeriiian deposed he was a farmer at TCanieri. He examined the heifer at Whilev's and found it had two “A"s" out on the right ear. Considered the marks were over two years old. To Air Eleoek.- Tie believer! Afr Singer had made a mistake by not closely examining the ear. where the hair severed it. This was the ease for the defence Air Eleoek asked leave to call rebutting evidence. William Singer deposed he resided at Kauieri. Used to visit Bndomski s about three years ago. Had never seen a calf of the description given about her place. His Worship stated defendant- was iu possession and the Stock Inspector Slated it had defendant’s ear mark. The onus was on plaintiff' to prove his claim and this he had failed to do. Plaintiff would be non-suited with (Left sitting.)