Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Magistrate's Court.

FBIDA.Y, JULY 25th.

Before Mr F. V. Frazer, S.M,

Alleged Cattle Trespass.

A case partly heard at a former sitting of the Court, in which. Chas. Newman claimed the sum of £10 from Stanley Broughton for alleged cattle tresspass (a bull being permitted to tresspass on complainant's property at Pouto) under " the Impounding Act 1908," -was continued. Mr Alderton with Mr Stelling for complainant and Mr T. Cotter K. C. for the defence.

When the adjourned hearing opened Mr Cotter pointed out that the plaintiff had admitted in his evidence that the fence was not a legal one, and he submitted that being so the case could not stand. The Solicitor for plaintiff argued that a letter from the Marine Dept. to plaintiff saying they had no ob« jection to his moving the fence to the proper boundary constituted an agree* ment between them to accept the fence as a legal one. The Magistrate could not accept the view put forward by Mr Stelling, as the letter to him did not bear that impress, The case was dismissed with costs for defendant of £4 Its Od. Agistment Claim. Mrs J. E. Newman sued Fred. LeGrice for £68 16s lOd, the claim being £56 13s 4d for grazing in respect of 100 head of cattle on the property of plaintiff at Pouto from Ist July 1912 to Ist March 1913 (being at the rate of 4d per head per week) and the further sum of £12 3s 6d for mustering, paddocking and driving of same to defendant's property. Mr Alderton with Mr Stelli ng was for plaintiff and Mr T. Cotter K.C. for defendant. A lot of evidence was taken in this case, after which.— The Magistrate said the evidence had been lengthy and. somewhat conflicting, but it seemed to be clear that some of LeGrice's cattle, a consider* able number, and for some time had been running on Mrs Newman's property. Apart from any special agreement there would be no claim for the land as unfenced, and would only be driving fees and impounding fees. There had to be something snowing conclusively some sort of agreement. The plaintiff had sent a letter to the defendant as to removing the cattle, but this letter defendant denied having received. Then another piece of evidence was Newman's statement of having met LeGrioe at the Waitemata hotel' about the grazing in January of this year. Newman stated very positively that his main object in speaking to defendant then was to tell him about these cattle or insist on some arrangement. This interview, to his mind, LeGrice did not explain quite satisfactory. He thought LeGrice was quite honest in the matter but that his recollection must have suffered, probably through ill health. Newman's version of that meeting: seemed to him the more likely one. Judging from the evidence he was inclined to think that an arrangement was to refer to past as well as fixture grazing. He referred to the evidence of witnesses as to where the best grazing was obtainable, but as the best piece of land was only acquired about a month previous to the muster of defendant's cattle, so that any tresspass or grazing could have taken place only in February. Proceeding-, he further reviewed the evidence to show that the amount claimed was in excess of what a proper claim wuuld be. as he had to con^ aider that part o£ the claim was for grazing on land on which the plain~ tiff had no claim except for one month. Then the evidence was very vague as to the number- of animals on the place at any time. He had to put a reasonable conclusion forward as to what the cost of the grazing should be and have a shot at it. Ho could not feel justified and could not see that he could allow mor9 than £10 for the agistment, as he had been rather puzzled in view of the vagueness of the evidence and fact that the cattle were not in good condition afterwards. He thought there was some agreement about mustering, but the services of the natives were not necessary for tho time charged for and he would cut that sum down from 30s to 15s.

Judgment entered for plaintiff for £21 8s 6d, and each party to pay his own costs.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/KWE19130730.2.7

Bibliographic details

Kaipara and Waitemata Echo, 30 July 1913, Page 2

Word Count
726

Magistrate's Court. Kaipara and Waitemata Echo, 30 July 1913, Page 2

Magistrate's Court. Kaipara and Waitemata Echo, 30 July 1913, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert