RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, BLENHEIM.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume II, Issue 121, 18 May 1880, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, BLENHEIM.

Monday, May 17tii. (Before H. Melntire, Esq., R.M.] HORNE V. TAYLOR. In this case, which stood over from the previous sitting, the Court now gave judgment. The R.M. said it would be remembered that at the close of the case plaintiff’s counsel moved for a non-suit on three grounds, namely—that plaintiff being out of actual possession must prove ownership; that the form of action—detinue—was not the right one; that plaintiff was suing the wrong man, The first and second points raised were over-ruled; on the third the Court observed that defendant was in the position of an innocent holder, and there was no proof that he wrongfully detained the dog. Plaintiff, would, therefore, be non-suited with costs. Mr Sinclair asked the Court to say that the notieo given by Constable Bailey to Mr Taylor, that tlie dog—which formed the subject mattor of the action—was Dr Horne’s dog, was sufficient. This would enable Dr Horne to appoal if he thought proper. The Court assented. Dr Ilorno can, therefore, if lie thinks proper, go on with his case again. BREACH OF THE SHEEP ACT. John Gibson, farmer, of Kaituna, was charged by W. A. P. Sutton, Inspector of Sheep, with negligently suffering 100 infected sheep to stray upon land not being the property of the said John Gibson, and lie having no right of pasturage over it. Mr Sinclair appeared in support of the information, and stated that Mr Gibson’s sheep were infected, and that he did not hold a clean certificate. These sheep were suffered by defendant’s negligence to stray on to Mr Maher’s land, which was hard on that gentleman who did hold a clean certificate, as did also all the Kaituna farmers except Mr Gibson, who, moreover, had more sheep than his land would carry. Mr Maher had lost his certificate in consequence of Mr Gibson’s sheep getting amongst Mr Maher’s flock. W. A. P. Sutton, Inspector of Sheep for the Blenheim Sub-division, stated that defendant’s name appeared in the Gazette of 31st March last as having infected sheep. No clean certificate has been granted to him since. Mr Gibson’s last return shows him to have 1200 sheep. Mr John Maher’s property adjoins Mr Gibson’s. Mr Maher did hold a clean certificate but it was cancelled on the 3rd May in consequence of Mr Gibson’s sheep getting amongst Mr Maher’s flock. Witness saw these sheep in Mr Maher’s yards on the 3rd May. They were drafted out by Mr Gibson’s son. Defendant’s land faces the river bed. He has received notice to discontinue running his sheep on Crown land. By defendant:—l did not see any 'scab on the sheep. I did not look for scab as the sheep came from an infected flock. John Maher, farmer, Kaituna, stated that his land adjoins defendant’s. On the 3rd instant he mustered his sheep and found about 150 of Mr Gibson’s sheep amongst the flock. These sheep appeared to be clean but Mr Gibson does not hold a clean certificate. Witness held a clean certificate up to the 3rd May when it was cancelled by Inspector Sutton because Mr Gibson’s sheep got amongst them. There is about a quarter of a mile of the boundary between the two runs unfenced. Witness has 1000 sheep. Witness considers the fiat in Mr Gibson’s occupation is overstocked. By the Court : —As to the quarter of a mile of boundary fence required, the river would wash it all away if it was put up. The only way of keeping the sheep on their proper runs is by boundary shepherds. Witness’ brother rides about the boundary two Of three times a day.

H. G. Clarke, Chief Surveyor and Commissioner of Crown lands produced a plan of Mr Gibson's and adjoining properties, and a piece of Crown land adjacent over which Mr Gibson formerly held a license, but not now. John Gibson, the defendant, deposed that there was a fence between his run and Mr Maher’s down to the river bank, but when the river is down the sheep sometimes get over the boundary. These sheep got away whilst he was mustering. The Resident Magistrate said if it had been proved there was no negligence, on defendant’s part the Court might have seen its way clear to dismiss the case, but th>not being so he must inflict a penalty. Mr Sinclair said the prosecutor would bo satisfied with the lowest penalty, £5. A penalty of £5 and costs £2 IDs was imposed. BARCLAY V. WYATT. This was a claim for £l4 0s 2d. The plaintiff did not appear, but his agent Mr Stenhouse, asked for au adjournment for a week. The defendant objected, and said lie could not afford to be kept waiting here for a week. The R.M. said be must strike out the case, unless the expense of an adjournment were paid. Case struck out. EARL AND M ‘KEN/.IE V. BRIGHT. This was an action for £2 0s Od for firewood, etc. . . Defendant did not appear, and plaintiffs having proved the debt, obtained judgment for the amount claimed with costs. SAME V. BEALEY, This was a claim for £4 5s for horse-hire, firewood, etc. No defence was offered and judgment was given for the plaintiffs with costs,