MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 23 July 1931, Page 6

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, JULY 22.

(Before W. Meldrum, Esq. S.M.)

DEBT CASES.

Judgment for the plaintiff with costs were given in the fallowing:— Westland Hospital Board (Mr Elcoek), v. Jas. Duncan Junr., claim £ls 10s 6d and costs £2 14s.

M. McGavin (Mr Elcock) v. E. A. Hacked claim £lO 17s fid and costs £2 3s.

Peter Webster (Mr Elcock) v. Clark Construction Coy., Ltd., claim £6B Is and costs £5 14s.

Fred Black (Mr Elcock) v. W. McCluggage claim £3l os and costs £4 Is fid.

LICENSING ACT.

Police charged an offender with being on licensed premises after hours (Mast onic Hotel). Ordered to pay costs 10s. . .

Another resident similarly charged (Masonic Hotel) pleaded not guilty Adjourned to fitli August to allow a witness to give evidence. Two residents (Club Hotel) similar charge, were convicted. One was fined 20s and costs 10s, the other to pay costs .10s.

'l’lie police charge Itnelda Devaney with selling liqotir after' hours and Julia Devaney with keeping open after hours (Club Hotel). Mr Sellers- for defendants pleaded guilty. The if o Hirer wits fined'2os and costs 10s, and the latter 40s and costs 10s.

BOROUCH BYE-LAWS.

Borough fspector, W. E. Gay lor (Mr Park) v. A. H. Nancekivell, a charge of Ini ure to preduce a motor driver’s license. Fined 10s and costs 20s fid. Same v. John Stuart, a .similar charge Fined 10s and costs 20s fid.

ALLEGED THEFT.

Samuel Emil Yde (Mr Murdoch; v. John Stewart (Mr Revell) a charge of unlawfully removing 20 sheep from the property of plaintiff, Christchurch Road. A pica of not guilty was entered and defendant elected to be dealt with summarily.

Mr Murdoch -said .the parties owned land adjoining on tlio Christchurch Rond and tlicre had been difficulties fiefbrc between the parties. He emphasised that stock must not be removed from one owner’s land by another person, without proper notice . .being .given,... IT. F. Cooke produced deeds showing the area held by the plaintiff Yde. Samuel Emil Yde gave evidence that he had.property at Christchurch Road and Otira. He usually went to Otira on Sundays from his Christchurch road farm. Mr Fitzgerald lives near. Stuart lives nearer, whore the stock was being mustered. He was the owner and occupier of section 1236. On the Sunday referred to ho did not give Stewart any permission to enter or remove stock. He had been to Otira on the ~jth. and came home that night. He remained horns on ,21st. June. With Tom Coyle and .hie Lee went along what used to be the old road to section 1236. Heard someone with clogs and presently Stewart came along with slice]) on to section 1226 and picked up some, more sheep, about 20 lie thought, and took them along to tlio main road. He crossed the old road in front of section 1236. He had to do this to get to the main road. Witness then went home with the two men, got the car and ran along to where Stewart had the sheep. Found there were four sheep tied up. Saw Stewart in the same section again, 1z36, gathering cattle. He drove seven from there to the same place,

| tlio same way as he moved the sheep. When Stewart came over the road witness, asked. Jiim if lie knew the position in which he was putting himself. He said he did. Stewart then asked him if he had .seeii him. mustering and witness said lie would tell him about that later. Stewart then said lie would ]' let the sheep go if he wished. Witness '-said'lie could do as he liked. Stewart then asked the two boys if they had seen Becker and another man. The hoys said they .had not. Stewart then went into Kurnara in his Ford lorry and brought out Constable Wilton, ! who said it was not a case for the pol- | ice. Stewart removed about 35 sheep ! from the section. About seven bclong- • ed to witness. Stewart did not see wit. i ness when he was removing the first sheep. All the land on the top side of the road from the stream belonged to witness. There was a clear marking of the boundary by a fence. Stewart said to witness that he had done the same. Witness said he had always given notice by letter. To Mr Revel!—When Stewart was I removing the stock, witness was on I tile river bed watching him. Section 1225 had some high gorse on it. On the river side, the section was not full}' fenced. Their stock mingled owing to wandering o,n the" river bed. From the time they stopped watching till they were in the car at Stewart’s place was about half an hour. To the Magistrate—'The four sheep tied up were Stewart’s. He let go the other 20 and they came back to his (witness) land. To Mr Revell—He nearly always went to Otira on a Sunday. To the Magistrate—He did not suggest on this occasion that he was going to take witness’ sheep. To Mr Murdoch—On a previous occasion witness had lost clean skins. Tf Stewart had given him notice witness would have taken no exception. Witness had always given notice when he wished to master, and Stewart had

given witness notice on several occas- j ions. - Joseph Lee gave evidence that he| worked for Mr Yde. He was present; with Yde on 21st. June when Stewart took the sheep away. He took six of Yde’s. Witness generally gave corroborative evidence. Heard Stewart say lie would let the sheep go if Yde wished. To Mr Revel I.—Stewart collected some of his own sheep and drove them on to Yde’s land to collect the other sheep. He did not know what the relations were between the two paities. | Tliomas Coyle gave evidence he was a labourer. June 21st was the first Sunday Yde had been home for two months. The 20 sheep were grazing on Yde’s land before Stewart removed them. 'Jo Mr Reveil.— Yde, Lee and witness were together all the time. Had been working for Yde for two months. , This was wie case for the plaintiff. Mr Rcvell said the defence was that Stewart denied being on Y T de’s land, that ne was on his own land, section 3236:

John Stewart the dciiendaiit gave evidence that he was a farmer on Christchurch Road. On 21st .1 line ho went out to get certain sheep off his sections. To get to section 1321, he had to cross the old Christchurch Road Ho got the sheep off his own sectionThis was fenced off from Yde’s. Sheep could get under the fence, but not cattle. Did not go through the gate into Yde’s section. Took twenty sheep. He wanted to get one for the home, and caught four and tied them up. There was also a wearner calf grazing with the sheep that lie also took. He took four other cattle for driving purposes and took out the calf. Saw Yde on the hill after he.had got tlie sheep out. After ho had got what lie wanted he let other stock go. Yde did not accuse witness of going bn his land. When he was getting the sheep he had no idea that anyone wqs about. There were none v of Yde’s sheep that witness drove.

To Mr Murdoch: Two years ago the same trouble took place. -Sunday was the only day witness had to look after the sheep, as he was working at the mill. He did not say to Yde that he would let the sheep go. He went into the police to see if all was right. He was going to take the four sheep home for killing. To Mr ißevell: He did not give notice to Yde as he was mustering on his own land. The Magistrate; Yon must know you have tb give notice even if you are mustering on your own land for removal. This was a case for the defence. , J Mr ißevell said the matter was a trivial one between two farmers who were not friendly and. that Yde was taking undue advantage of the happening. His Worship said tb” 'Fargo was laid under Section 59 of the Stock Act ard the offence was a very serious one. 'tb s was the second time the' defendant had been before the Court on a similar Charge. Defendant was convicted and fined £lO, Court costs 10s, and witnesses 50s, counsel, £1 Is.