RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CHRISTCHURCH.

Lyttelton Times, Volume III, Issue 148, 5 November 1853, Page 7

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CHRISTCHURCH.

27 th October, 1853. Present—Capt. Simeon, R.M., Chairman, W.~G. Biuttan, Esq., J.P., and Captain . Wkstknra, J.P. . Caul/ibid v. Archer. —The defendant was summoned for liiiving, on the 17ll> September last, impounded rive Bullocks.belonging* to the p!nintiff,jcontrnvy to the provisions of the New Zealand (Impounding Ordinance. The defendant having admitted the impounding of tlie cattle, Mr. Brown was culled ou ihe

part of the plaintiff, arid being sworn, stated, that he knew Mr. Archer's land and produced a sketch showing the state of his fencing. Just over the Bridge there was a fence along the Lower Lincoln Road two sods high for twenty yards, three for 24 yards, two sods with post and rail, beyond that there was no fence along the road, and on the south-west side of Mr. Archer's land there was no fence at the time of impounding Mr. Caulfield's bullocks. Cross-examined by Defendant.—Where bullocks have passed there is a sod bank ; there is no natural fence to keep out cattle, adjoining the fence as it was at the time of the impounding. The defendant having admitted that the land was not fenced on all sides, the Magistrates remarked that as it was the first, offence which had been brought before them under that clause of the Ordinance, and under those circumstances, they would not inflict the full penalty. The defendant was then fined 10s. and costs. Same v. Same. —This was a claim for 41. 155. against the defendant, being 21. for damage sustained in consequence of the defendant driving away two bullocks belonging to the plaintiff, and the further sum of 21. 15s. charged as poundage fees, (paid by the plaintiff to the pound-keeper at Christehurch, under protest) for impounding five bullocks belonging to the plaintiff, and amount of damage done by them, being the amount for ivhich they had been impounded in the previous action. The Plaintiff failed to substantiate his claim for driving away die bullocks. The Plaintiff sworn, —On Sunday I was informed that Mr. Archer had impounded my bullocks—l went at once to Christehurch, paid the fees, and look the bullocks out of the pound — I paid £2 155., being 15s. for poundage fees, and £2 for damages. The cattle were impounded for two days, and I was told that they had not been fed. The Defendant being sworn, said that he had been from home for a week, and when he returned, he found Mr. Caulfield's bullocks on his land-—they had eaten off three acres of wheat and oats laid down with red clover. Mr. J. G. Harris, the poundkeeper, was called in, and informed by the Bench that he had no right to take any sums of money beyond the rates of fees provided for feeding, for poundage and damage,, which rates he had, or ought to have, painted on a board, and erected in the pound, and that if he had not erected such board, he was liable to a penally. The judgment was then given against the defendant for the 15s. for poundage fees, (as he impounded the cattle when his land was not fenced in), with costs. And the plaintiff was informed by the Bench that he would have to look to the Poundkeeper for the amount he had paid him as damages. Mr. Harris willingly assented to this, and immediately handed over £2 to Mr. Caulfield.