TRESPASSING PIGS.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXX, Issue 5462, 16 August 1929, Page 3

TRESPASSING PIGS.

AWAITI CASE. CLAIM FOR RATES. The following is the conclusion of the case, B. J. Coldicutt v. W. P. Handley, heard by Mr F. W. Platts, S.M., at the Paeroa Court on Monday last, when the former claimed £73 13s trespass rates for alleged trespass on his land of Handley’s pigs. Mr Carden contended that restoration was the actual physical conveyance to about the residence of the owner. That was important The evidence, especially of the eldest son, of driving off, had not led to restoration, but the driving off on to Handley sen ior’s property, which was not under the control or management of Handley junior. All the evidence as to the number of pigs trespassing and dates prior to June 27 was totally unreliable and should be discarded. To ascertain the actual amount it wi.s necessary to prove the actual numbers trespassing. Other pigs might have trespassed, which would lead to confusion. That could be shown. The total number of pigs owned by Handley was 16, together with five that had been in his sty since the beginning of May. Some had been disposed of since. The Tamworth and three other sows belonged to defendant’s brother, who had had them for the last two years. Complainant stated he had reared three sows and sold them to Bayliss. Defendant had only bought two from Bayliss, and they were locked up in the turnip paddock along with the piglets. They were sold on July 31 at H’kutaia in his brother’s name. The brother had been sharemilking for his father and running both the latter’s properties. On July 31 defendant had bought 12 young ones from his brother and some the year before. Defendant’s Evidence.

Defendant, in answer to Mr Carden, said he had 13 pigs, including two sows, in a paddock of turnips. Another five were locked up in a sty. About April he had put nine in the sty. The four biggest ones had been sold in June. About April the pigs used to go to defendant’s, or at least he said they did. He had asked Coldicutt to add wires to his fence, and he said he would not. Defendant had caught the pigs with the aid of his brother-in-law, L. Rice, and put them in the sty. In April, before his brother Edward had gone to Katikati, milk was getting short, so he had turned five pigs into the turnip paddock. The fence kept them in, and he had made a gate to allow them to sleep in the rushes, it was only common sense that pigs would net leave turnips to eat grass. The turnips were just about finished, but the pigs were still there. They would not leave for Coldicutt’s; there was no feed there. He did not think complainant could have seen, as he said he saw, 22 pigs, as defendant only had 16. None of his pigs went to Coldicitt’s. When Coldicutt would not fix the fence defendant had locked his pigs up. being fed up with Coldicutt’s growling. Complainant never put any of defendant’s pigs in defendant’s sty. On July 22 defendant had seen Coldicutt in Paeroa. Handley'maintained that on seeing him Coldicutt rushed home and put the pigs in defendant’s sty. On returning home and finding the pigs in his sty defendant had rung up Coldicutt and told him. to take them back, they were not his. Next morning he sent a note across by his brother denying ownership and asking him to take them back. He then decided to put them out in the paddock, even his . own pigs were starving through lack of feed. He took the sow and six young to the Hikutaia sale. Three other'sows and 12 young belonged to his brother, whom he thought had reared them when sharemilking for his father. When share milking at Puke his brother was manager of both places. One winter when short of feed he had put them on his father’s property. Pigs there fattened much better than when locked up. Defendant had nothing to do with his brother’s pigs; hjs brother merely made his home with him. His brother did not, worry much about the pigs, only looking them over when he came home. Defendant had bought two, not three, sows from Bayliss. These had never been on Coldicutt’s land; he had never admitted ownership of any pigs there. He had objected to the shooting of any pigs on the grounds of cruelty to dumb animals. Two years previously he had warned complainant for shooting at a horse. A pig shot four months ago had died, or at anyratc had not been seen since. He had had his brother’s pigs in his yard for nearly a week while waiting for the Hikutaia sale. He had never possessed a boar ; there were so many pigs running about that he had merely to let his pigs out in season and boars came from all directions. Carter’s pigs went back and forward over his father’s property to Nesbitt’s via a drain. Twelve of his brother’s little pigs yarded fur the Hikutaia sale defendant had bought from him as he was short of pigs. For them he had paid 5s each, £1 on July 22 before delivery and £2 on August 1, after delivery (cheque butts produced). Fisher’s pigs had been on his father’s property on and off for four years. On July 22 he told Fisher some of his pigs were there, and he would like him to catch them. Fisher, defendant, and his brother caught five. Fisher had removed two sows from the rushes in May or June. One had a litter, the other littered the next day. Defendant’s brother’s sows bred there too. Defendant’s were not there, they were all round the sty and fed there three times a day, until the turnips came in. Defendant denied telling Coldicutt that there were a number of sows breeding on his father’s place. When complainant was growling about it he had told him there were other pigs there besides defendant’s ; he did not own them all. The little white pig he bought from his brother on July 21, and it was the only white pig he had seen out there. Young Stewart Coldicutt had not been over for months. Heie Mr Carden intervened to submit that it was not necessary to deal

with Stewart’s evidence, the magistrate replying that it would perhaps be better to deal with it. Continuing, Handley said Stewart was a nice little boy, he liked him, and had a joke with him about the p'gs. As they were not his pigs he did not worry and treated the matter as a joke. Referring to the windmill. Handley said it was the only one on the place, and might belong to an absolute stranger except for the fact that he drew water there. Cross Examination. In answer to Mr O’Neill defendant said he lived on his own place, and his brother lived with him when he was not working out. After sharemilking his brother had stopped with him 18 months and off and on ever since. He had been with him the last month. He went away early in May and returned from Katikati about a month ago. When the brother was home he looked after’ the pigs. The Magistrate : Who looks after them when he’s away ? Defendant : Nobody at all ; they go their own free way.” He had nothing to do with his father’s property be.yond grazing his stock there last year, and if lucky would do so again this year. Pigs came on his father’s property all day, and from all directions ; he did not know where from. With the rushes to hide them there might have been 100 pigs there and no one the wiser. That was the reason he wished to have a proper fence between him and Coldicutt. If complainant told the truth, and defendant did not think he would, he would say defendant had never told him he would keep his pigs out. On June 29 he had treated the whole thing as a joke. Defendant admitted the joke had serious results. The pigs Coldicutt had placed in his sty defendant. had sold at Hikutaia along with three of his brother’s sows. He had sold them in his brother’s name. His brother was not present at the sale owing to having a touch of "flu.” As for telling the ferryman that he was taking the “man-eater” for sale, he had said it as a joke. The whole district was laughing over the joke of a so-called “man-eating” pig. Mr O’Neill here remarked that there were evidently a lot of jokes in connection with the pigs, but it was a ' serious matter for Coldicutt, the pigs getting into his field and rooting it up. In answer to Mr Carden Handley replied that there was better feed outside the sty than in it. Outside they flourished without attention. Brother’s Evidence, Edward Handley, giving evidence, said he had while sharemilking managed his father’s places at the Puke and Awaiti. Eighteen months ago he knocked off. Three sows he had he took to Awaiti when he left his father’s employ. There were two litters in two years. The first lot he sold to his brother about eight months after littering, getting in exchange a horse. For six he received 5s each from his brother. A couple of days before he left for Katikati in May he gave his brother a hand to drive 12 or 15 pigs into the turnips. He lived with his brother between jobs. He had helped defendant clear the paddock and the turnip patch had been put down about October. The turnips were fenced and the pigs unable to get out. He did not know how many pigs were, in the sty, as he had never gone near it. Defendant had no rights on his father’s property. He had sent his three sows to the Hikutaia sale with his brother, as he had “flu” that day. He had helped Fisher to catch four or five on the same day as those had , been caught. Five were caught; the other, which had been ripped by dogs, died. His brother owned no boar In answer to Mr O’Neill witness said that the pigs had been around the sty before the turnips were ready. His father’s place at Awaiti consisted of some 97 to lOC acres, where young stock was placed in summer and milking cows in winter. He did not know who was now manager of his father’s place. He had sold his brother 12 pigs—one white, five black and white, and six ginger Tamworths. Mr Carden suggested that Constable McClinchy might care to give evidence that he saw pigs in the turnips when investigating a cattle-steal-ing charge, but the officer declined to be drawn’into civil business. Reserved Decision. After both solicitors had concluded their eases the magistrate announced that he would give his decision at a later date.