THOSE PIGS AGAIN.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXX, Issue 5461, 14 August 1929, Page 3

THOSE PIGS AGAIN.

LEGAL TRESPASS ACTION. LENGTHY ARGUMENT. Another lengthy sitting took place in Monday’s Court over straying pigs, when B. J. Coldicutt applied for £73 13s trespass rates against W. P. Handley in respect to the alleged trespass of defendant’s pigs over complainant’s property. Mr F. W. Platts, S.M., heard the case, Mr C. N. O’Neill appearing for complainant and Mr R. S. Carden for defendant. Mr O’Neill, for complainant, said the case was one for trespass rates for pigs, and proceeded to quote vari ous sections of the Impounding Act. Mr Carden intervened to ask that all witnesses interested be ordered out <><’ Court, a request the magistrate granted. Continuing, Mr O’Neill quoted from the Act that on restoring trespassing cattle, which included pigs, a claim for trespass rates was justified and valid in this case although the land was unfenced. • The facts were that for practically two years complainant’s land had been continually trespassed tmon by defendant’s pigs. Complainant had been advised that he had no redress, as he had .not a legal fence. Defendant acted accordingly, and had admitted on more, than one occasion that he would not keep his nigs out. Finally, said Mr 0 Neill, as complainant’s solicitor he had advised him that he had redress. On the. same date he told complainant to keep a record of all pigs trespassing. Complainant had set to work and compiled a list foi* those few weeks prior to the advice, and then from day to. day. He had sent a trespassing, notice, receipt of which defendant admitted,; but he denied the trespass. * The evidence would show that the pigs did trespass. Counsel pointed out Jo the magistrate the difficulty of restoring the pigs, The difficulty was that the lands of complainant and defendant did noti, actually adjoin one another.j Land belonging to the defendant’s father lay in between. The pigs had been driven off complainant’s land on to defendant’s father’s property, and on some oc&asions when-Coldicutt was working for the ElstoW. Draihage Board had been driven- across the intervening property right through to defendant’s. It was required to prove restoration. The Act did not sa y aetuall y to de ' liver, but to restore to defendant’s land. Counsel was going to contend that driving off on to defendant’s father’s land constituted restoring. There were two ways of dealing with the matter. One was to impound and the other was to restore. If complainant had impounded he would have taken them out of control of the defendant. If he put them in a position within control of the defendant, then he had restored them to the defendant. In other words, he relinquished control of the pigs when he drove >.hem hack whence they came. To strengthen this, evidence would show that defendant had permission to run on his father’s: land, and therefore, driving the'pigs bn to his father’s land was in actual fact restoring them to the defendant. On one occasion the pigs had actually been taken back to defendant’s properly. Complainant and his son had rounded some up one night and placed them in a shed, faking them back in a dray the next day . to defendant. The ownership of the pigs was a difficult problem. The defendant had denied the ownership of the nigs restored by dray. These pigs- were included in the tabulated list. When complainant sent them back defendant had put a notice in a paper to say that unless the pigs placed in his sty were removed they would be sold. No doubt defendant would disclaim and try to shake the statement of complainant restoring the pigs. Evidence would show that other nearby settlers had pigs, but none but defendant’s pigs trespassed. Defend; ant admitted having received a demand for;trespass rates on July 25. If the pigs trespassed within three months after the'first notice double rates could be charged. The unfenced rate was Is each trespass. All on the schedule were within the first three months. Prior to that it was difficult to estimate exactly. The claim for £7O was a lot of money when defendant thought he had a perfect right to let bis pigs run wild. It was nothing, though, to the trouble plaintiff had had to put up with for the last two years through defendant’s pigs running over his land. The significant point was that of owner*ship. One day, after the pigs had been restored by dray, there had been an enormous amount of squealing coming from the rushes at the hack.of the sty. Pigs were bred and lived there. On that day, which was about a fortnight ago, pigs were collected ff’din’ there, of .which fact there was ocular evidence,' and there had been no complaints of 'trespassing pigs since. Coldicutt’s Evidence. Complainant, examined by Mr O’Neill, said the first date on the schedule of nigs trespassing that he could vouch for was June 27. For figures prior to that he had the word of his boy, in whom he had every confidence. When he was working on a contract for the Elstow Drainage Board, he used to drive the offending pigs along a drain bank and into defendant’s property. Many times he had thrown bits of stumps to get them away from his land. On. June 26 he ceased working for the Elstow Drainage Board. He actually put i some-pigs off on the 21st. He specified as offending pigs one Tamworth sow and six of her progeny, which from May 6 had been continually trespassing almost, every day for three weeks. Another sow and eight progenv which came at irregular intervals defendant admitted were his. From June 26 he had been home continually. He could vouch for the whole of the pigs from and including June 26. He invariably went round after milking to view his property. One morning there were 15 pigs, and 13 . on the same afternoon. Eight of those were among the 15 in the morning. Last thing at night he had put four off. There were 20 individual

pigs to his knowledge. On June 7 there were none. He had seen no sucking pigs ; all the sows were dry. He was positive they were Handley’s pigs—he always claimed them as his. Last winter there were four sows continually on his place ; three he recognised as ones he had reared and sold to Mr Bayliss, who had in turn sold to Handle;.'. Another, Handley had claimed to be a pedigree Berkshire sow.

Mr Carden . ’’You say a pedigree Berkshire sow Coldicutt : “What he claimed to be a Berkshire, sow.”

Continuing complainant said he could identify six sows, having known them for the last two winters. All the rest were younger, progeny of the various sows. He had had 25 to 30 years’ experience of pigs, and from that experience found that pigs always herded together, the progeny kept to a certain sow and always foraged with her. With the exception of nine, all came with sows. On June 29, the morning of the abuse that had led to court proceedings, he had put off four pigs while defendant was actually there at the fence. Defendant, it: answer to complainant, then said he would not keep them off unt’’ complainant had a legal fence put up. These four had been across several times, and he had no difficulty in identifying them. On April 24 defendant claimed a sow. and eight young ones which appeared on the list. Defendant had always claimed the Taraworth sow and her six progeny ; he had always the looking after of his father’s place. Complainant had seen him drive pigs from his (complainant’s) boundary to defendant’s. On July 21 complainant had caught a sow and six young and returned them to Handley’s sty on the 22nd. On the 23rd he saw defendant bring the balance of his pigs from the race on his place. As far as was humanly possible he could swear to the offending pigs being Handley’s—he knew them only too well; they had been annoying him for so long. Three or four black sows had been collected and one little white pig. There were more still, but he could not recognise them. He was prepared to swear those he recognised were the same as he had on his list. None of defendant’s pigs had been on his property since July 23. No other people’s pigs had trespassed on his property. Early in April six pigs had strayed on, which outsiders claimed. He knew at once that they were not defendant’s pigs. Mr Carter, on being approached, did not claim them at the time, saying he would not know until he had visited his other property further away. When he did so he claimed , them, and complainant had not seen them since. Complainant mentioned nearby settlers called Carter, Fisher, and Paul as having pigs, hut none of them strayed near his place. Defendant had told complainant he had pigs in the rushes and pigs on Handley’s father’s property—he did not know how many. On July 21 a black and white sow with six progeny, including one pure white one, were on his land. The little white one on previous occasions had always been the most timid and the first . to take alarm, rushing in amongst the' others and causing a stampede to the fence. They were very wild. On the day in question he had driver, the pigs about three parts of the way up the farm, intending to drive them through the Handley’s The sow broke away, '3nd complainant’s eldest son came out with the dogs and caught the animal\bout six chains away. Together wittpjiis son Albert complainant caught young pigs. It was-. a terrible jbb, and he suffered for a fortnight, from' the unusual experience. In the tussle the eldest boy had his. finger bitten. As there were the cows to milk, it was too late to restore the pigs that night, so they were, placed* in a shed .and delivered into Handley’s sty the next day with the assistance of defendant’s man, ■ who had told him to 1 fKett there; Handley’s man said not to put them in the pig paddock as they would only return to complainant’s property. The distance between the two. boundaries was about 10 chains , .Tjie jpigs, had caused great damage on his land ; they ate the grass,, and, whpp there was no grass rooted- up the ground. The sow and young ; ones he had put in Handley’s sty had been afterwards sold at a Hikutaia sale, along with three Other sows that had continually been on his place. This concluded Mr O’Neill’s examination of complainant. Cross-examination. In answer to Mr Carden’s crossexamination .Coldicutt said .he- had reared three sows and sold .them to Bayliss, together with a Berkshire sow.: He knew- Handley looked after his father’s place, as he was continually over it on horseback and on foot tending and watering cattle. He also attended to the windmill there. He watered his cattle through the fence at the windmill tank. No pigs had been on his property since July 22. He denied that on July 23 Fisher’s pigs had been on, and that Fisher and defendant had taken them off. It was hard to know if the pigs were earmarked. On Mr Carden remarking that ? complainant had seen the pigs quite a lot, Coldicutt replied that they were difficult to bail up. He had caught one and it was not earmarked. Sometimes ho drove the pigs on to defendant’s father’s property and at times on to defendant’s. On June 29 he had actually restored pigs to defendant by putting them over hi's father’s fence. On 'certain fences being pointed out on a map Coldicutt said they were fairly pig-proof, whereupon Mr Carden remarked : “You said last time it was impossible to make them pig-proof. - ’ In answer witness explained that those fences were not in the same category as the dividing one. Carter’s pigs came through further along at the north end of W. Handley’s place on the other side of Carter’s pig paddock, it not being pig-proof there. Curtis; pad over 100 pigs in his paddock. Nesbitt also had pigs, although they were not likely to come through ; complainant would not deny that they could, but it was not probable. H.i heard that at the Hikutaia sale pigs had been

sold for E. and W. Handley. On July 22, when he took the pigs over, he told Hughes (Handley’s man) he had brought the “boss’s” pigs back. Hughes told him to put them in the sty. There were already two little black and white and one Tamworth there. Albert Coldicutt, the next witness, said he managed the farm during his father’s absence. He gave various outstanding events as the reason for his being able to give an estimate of the number of straying pigs on certain dates. Upon Mr Carden remarking that not much reliance could be placed on evidence that was purely memory, the magistrate agreed. Mr - Carden later asked witness : “Fow did the pigs get on your place. ?” to which witness replied, “Walked, I suppose.” He had heard no squealing from the rushes. If his father had heard some that was no reason why he should have. Pigs could come through from Mr Carter’s place. Stewart Coldiciut, the next witness called, gave evidence that he had delivered messages to Handley from complainant relative to the removing of pigs. Handley had said that he would do so, and treated the matter as a joke. W. Smythe, a youth employed by Carter, said he saw pigs running on Coldicutt’s property every day. He did not know who they belonged to. Mr Carden, for the defendant, said complainant did not impound the pigs, and counsel maintained he did not restore them. Complainant had placed pigs, allegedly defendant’s property, in Handley’s sty. They were not Handley’s, who immediately advertised them for sale, and retained the proceeds until he saw what happened. [Owing to pressure on our space this case will be concluded in our next issue.]