MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 2 August 1929, Page 6

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, AUGUST Ist. (Before W. Meld ruin,. Esq., S.M.) AFTERNOON SITTING. TRESPASS CHARGES. Samuel Able (Mr Murdoch) v. John Stewart. (Mr Revcll), a charge of unlawfully removing 10. cows and 6 calves 'from the property of plaintiff. Defendant pleaded, not guilty and elected to be dealt with summarily. Mr Murdoch said the informant had been missing stock for a considerable time and the defendant bad been going on palintiff’s land and interfering with liis stock. James C. Maefarlane deposed be was a duly qualified surveyor and gave evidence of the area of land belonging to Yde. Samuel Able gave evidence lie was a settler on Christchurch Road and was the owner and occupier of the land in title produced. He Tiad never given Stewart any permission to drive stock off his lijtnd. His‘nearest neighbour was Mrs Schumaker and Stewart lives there. On Sunday, July 7 7th, saw Stewart go into his (witness’s) freehold land on horseback with a pack, of dogs. AYent along with three boys, one working for him and two others. Went to a certain place. AVere about 10 to 15 chains away when Stewart came along and took 10 cows and 6 calves. The calves were not branded. He saw Stewart round up the cattle on witness’s land and drive the cattle across the freehold section to a gate, open the gate and drive the cattle into the main road. Saw Stewart in Mrs Schumaker’s, apparently separating cattle from the calves. Afterwards saw Stewart drive the same 1110 b of cattle to the same section. He returned 9 cows and 4 calves. The following day saw a cow which had had a calf, there without a calf, and he -had not seen the calf since. Stewart did not see witness or the boys. He removed those cattle without the consent of witness off his land. * ' To Mr Revel!—All the stock mustered did not belong to witness. It was all on his own land.

John Bcrgmann gave evidence that he was a farmer. residing at Fergusons. Recently 7 *he was opossum hunting at Jacksons. On Sunday, July 7th lie went with Mr Able, a brother, Ularence, and Thomas Gage. AYent to the river lied near Abie’s between 2 and' 3 p.m. Saw mixed stock. Saw Stewart come towards them round them and drive them off the ground. Witness was 10 or 12 chains away. The stock was grazing or resting. AYent there Jor a particular purpose. Saw Stewart drive the cattle across to a gate. Went and opened the gate and drove them through up the road to Mrs Sclmmaker’s. There were 10 cows and 6 calves. About a couple of hours later Stewart drove the cattle back. There were 9 cows and 4 calves then. There was fair feed for this time of the year..

To Mr Revel I —He was ■ trapping. Had been round bis traps that morning. AYlien Able took witness to the gorsebnsli, Stewart was in sight. Did not know then whose land it. was. Went ahead of Stewart, keeping out of sight. Able was with witness when the cattle were brought back. Thomas Gage, a,labourer, gave evidence that he worked for Able. On Sunday, July' 7th, went with Able and the two Bergmnnn’s to the river bed. Saw some cattle. Some belonged to Able and Shumaker. The cattle were grazing when Stewart came along. He got, them into a bitneli and drove them off. through a gate, which fjtcwart opened. He took 10 large and 6 small lambs ‘and later brought 9 large and 4 small. The big one missing came hack next day, but have not seen the two calves since. Stewart did not see witness when removing the cattle. Clarence Bergman gave evidence that lie had been out Christchurch Road trapping. On July 7th lie was at Yde’s, with his brother and )de. He corroborated previous evidence.

David John Stewart, gave evidence that he was a farmer residing at Christchurch Road and was the defendant. He managed for Mrs Shumaker, and had also land o! his own adjoining Abies. On July 7th he mustered certain cattle. There were 4 bullocks of liis own. a cow and a calf, there were altogether 13 big cattle and 8 calves. He went about a niile from ...rs' Shumakers to muster them, up tne river-bed opposite Neamc’s. Drove them down the old road, through the river bed to Mrs Shumakers. Took ’’ ■ the cattle to Airs Shumakers to take the calves off three cows. Put the muzzle on three calves. Kept his own cow and calf and two of All's Shumakers calves, and turned the others hack home and put his cow and calf and Airs Shumakers two'calves in another paddock. Did not see Able, Saw Bergman and the other hoy in the orchard when lie went out, hut did not see them when ho came hack. He wont up the river bed a mile. He had never mustered cattle within half a mile of that gate. >•■.* -J : To MV ATurd I H I — TTi ( > 7did not admit that he went through Abie’s paddocks lie was 011 had terms with Able. lie had been using Yde’s hin.l constantly. It was not true what the' three boys stated that they saw the cattle resting ten ' minutes before witness came along. When he brought the cattle

back he put them bn the old river bed. It was Axle’s land. Witness did not give Yde any notice that he was going to muster. The reason he did not go through Ncame’s was because there were young lambs there. He had never had Yde’s permission to remove s.ock from bis (Yde’s) land. He did not ask for Yde’s conseift, because he did not think he was on Yde’s land. The gate was on a public road and witness considered he had ihe right to drive down the public road. j.o the Magistrate—On this particular day be was driving 19 head from near Ncames. It was about 3 p.m. He got to Schumakers about 4 p.m. when passing Yde’s property, witness’s cattle did not mix with any of Yde’s. Did not see any of Yxle’s. Had the cattle bailed in Schumakers about' 11 liours. Muz/lecl three calves and took two cows and two calves, and turned the others back on the old ChCli. road towards, Nenmes, within a quarter, or half mile from where be first got them The river bed was over a quarter of a mile wide. There were no fences on the river bed. jiis Worship in giving judgment said there was a little conflict of evidence as between the material Accord, ing to Yde the stock was depasturing on. his land. Stewart on the other hand said he was driving stock from near Nenmes. He had not asked Noame’s consent and had driven along what ’’o says was the usual route. There was no doubt certain of the cattle were Yde’s. The meaning of the section olf the act was to protect owners of stock and to prohibit anyone entering i on land 'or removing stock without |‘. ■ - the consent of the occupier. He was I quite satisfied that a fine should lw imposed. Apparently they had very loose methods of farming in this district, as very litte of the land was fenced. Tt must he acknowledged that I the intention olf the law was that whe f ' j her fenced or not. no one lias the right to j on that land and remove stock with- | out the permission of the owner. Defendant would be fined To. with costs 10s, witnesses expenses £5 12s 0, counsel’s fee £3 3s 0; total £l4 5s 0.