FRANKTON POLICE COURT.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Volume I, Issue 15, 20 June 1863, Page 1 (Supplement)

FRANKTON POLICE COURT.

(Before Richmond Beetham, Esq., R.M.) Tuesday, June 16.

Information fob Trespassing on Run. Rees t. G. Miller. —Mr. Rees stated that Mr. Miller had cattle on his run, notwithstanding repeated warnings and notices to remove them.

Defendant pleaded that his cattle were running on the goldfield, and that he had never received notice to remove them. Mr. Rees sworn—The declaration of the district as a goldfield does not affect my lease until I receive compensation. Miller and his representatives have been often told by the overseer that he had no right to bring cattle on my run, and that he was doing me serious damage by mining his stock with mine. The Court—The declaration of the goldfield does not affect Mr. Rees' rights in his run. Commonage is now being surveyed by order of the Government, so that there will soon be plenty of 'pasturage. Mr. Rees—l do not wish to press for an extreme fine, but in this case I give defendant warning, that unless he removes his cattle I will impound them at Dunedin. The fine of £1 was inflicted, and immediately paid. Rees v. Campbell and Colville.—This was a similar case, and a nominal fine of £ 1 was inflicted.

Mr. Rees said that in the two cases for damages for mixing other cattle with his, he would withdraw the informations.

Kennedy v. Young, M.D.—Claim of £lO damages for poisoning a dog. Mr. Kennedy sworn, said that he was a baker in Queenstown. A short time ago he was summoned before Mr. Wood in an action of trespass by Mr. Young, when the case was decided in his favor. The Court—This does not seem to me to concern the case.

Mr. Kennedy—Yes, your Worship, it does. I wish to show that there was an animus on the part of the defendant. He used very strong language about revenge. Mr. Young (interrupting) —Did I say anything about you, or tending to shew I had any spite against you ? Mr. Kennedy—You said you were not satisfied with Mr. Wood's decision, and that you would be revenged. Mr. Kennedy continued his evidence—The dog was of great value, and I always kept him on the chain by day, and at night put him in the bakehouse. On Sunday week in the morning I put him out as usual and fastened him to the chain. Half an hour after I found him lying in a dying state close to the defendant's tent, which is some six inches apart from mine. Under his nose were two parcels of meat on pieces of tin. He was on the chain, which was strained to its extreme length. He died the same morning. By defendant —The dog was chained in my yard to the post of my chimney. I will swear that the post was six inches, but not further than twelve inches from the defendant's tent. The dog was lying close to a former doorway into Mr. Young's tent. The end of his chain was fast to a post quite four feet from that place. I did notice a hole in the side of the tent, where the doorway had never been properly filled up. In my opinion the dog could never have broken into that place. Mr. Agnew —I live next door to plaintiff. On Sunday morning week he called me in to see his dog. I saw it lying at the extremity of his oh**™ and evidently dying. From his position I do not think it possible he could have broken into Dr. Young's tent. The old door was not perfectly closed up. By defendant—The dog was lying close to your tent at full length of his chain, this was made fastened quite three feet from your tent. I saw him on the chain dying. My own dog was poisoned in the same way two nights after.

Defendant sworn —I am a surgeon. On Sunday week I saw a hole in my tent, and found a dog had broken through. There was a chain wrapped round one of the sticks of my tent. I had poison laid down inside. I mean I did not lay poisoned meat down to kill the dog, but rats. I have a right to protect my own house. John Carnegie—My attention was called to a mob in defendant's tent on Sunday week morning. I saw a dog chain round one of the braces as if a dog had broken in. Young told me he had poison, and that it was dangerous for dogs. Ido not think that the chain was fastened to a post of Mr. Young's tent.

The place where the poison was laid was lined with bagging. It was not regularly enclosed. Mr. Young said he had laid poison for rats. I took no notice of poison being laid in the place where the bagging was torn. His Worship—The dog has evidently been in the defendant's tent and taken the poison from there. I therefore dismiss the case.

Plaintiff—Well, your Worship, I found poisoned meat in my yard.