Resident Magistrate's Court.

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 103, 22 February 1868, Page 5

Resident Magistrate's Court.

BLENHEIM Monday, Eeb. 17, 1868. [Before S. L. Muller, Esq., KM.] allowing an entire animal at large, Robert M‘lver was charged on the information of —. Watson with allowing a bull, his property, to run at large, contrary to the statute. Mi\ Moffitt, who appeared for defendant, said there must be other object in a proceeding of this kind than bringing the defendant into Court as an offender to the Act. Since Mr, M‘lver has had the bull it has run at large. Something has been actuating the complainant in bringing the action. Defendant pleads guilty, and he hoped the Court would fix the penalty at the lowest possible sum. The Court said an animal of that sort might be kept in a very small space, and there Avas no excuse for its being allowed to be at large to do damage. It was of consequence that hulls or horses of a common breed should not get amongst animals of a superior breed to damage it. This bull is now running at large, and nothing has yet been done to remedy the evil. If you had a cow in a paddock, an animal of this sort might break down your fence to get in, and do considerable damage to the cow. , If fences had been washed down, the defendant should have done his best immediately to secure him. Mr. Moffitt : If the complainant had cows of his own by which he might, have received injury, there might have been justification for the action. His Worship : If the information had been laid as soon as the bull got at large it might have shown animus, but a fortnight has elapsed. Mr. Moffitt: Mr. MTver has been a great sufferer by the flood; his fences have been destroyed, and really there has been no time to get things in order. Mf. "Watson : 1 complained of the matter years ago, and to the defendant two months ago, as doing me harm. Fined the lowest penalty in consideration of the flood —£2, and os. 6d. costs. If the animal should not be secured and another action were laid, the highest penalty would be inflicted. IMPORTANT SHEEP CASE. JAMES GREIG V. LEWIS K. HORNE. This case was adjourned from last week for the production of further evidence. Peter o‘Dwyer (by Greig): I have seen that ear-mark —have never had sheep of the same. I sold a few sheep last September. There might have been some of that ear-mark. All were face-branded IT, except a few I bought from Mr. Lucas. I sold 80 or 90. They wore all ewes, no wethers. The lambs were marked with a slope at the back of the ear. There were so many different ear-marks —their ears were cut about in all directions. There were a few ot JVlonro’s mark among them. By Dr. Horne: Mr. Robinson bought those sheep I believe of Rayner, he of Bowler. Dr. Horne : I have a sheep at the door that is branded the same way, which I bought of Mr. Bowler. Nicholas Kelly (by Greig); I keep sheep of the same ear-mark. I bought them of Mr. M'Laughlan. I never sold any of them. Mr. Lucas (by Greig): I had some sheep in charge for Mr. Rayner. I could’nt say the number, think 100. He sold them to W. Robinson. I can’t tell you what became of them after that. Myself, Rayner, Minchin, and "William drafted them out. I never saw any of that mark go to Rayner, but I could’nt swear there were none. Rayner’s sheep were branded with a stirrup iron since we got them down from Bowler’s, as that was a brand quite different from any of ours. I did’nt take such particular notice of the ear-mark then. There might have been sheep of that mark, but I could’nt, say. I recollect some time ago your telling me which way some of your sheep went —towards Robinson’s ; about 20 or 30 you told me. John Palmer (by Dr. Horne): I am a shepherd in Dr. Horne’s employment. I remember your telling me to take a mob of sheep out of Lawrence’s yard. Most of these were pitch-branded PD. Some of those purchased did hear, that ear-mark. I know Dr. Hprne has purchased other sheep of other parties with that ear-mark —of Mr. Bowler. Ks. By Mr. Greig : Dr. Horne purchased of Mr. Bowler 12 or 13 of that ear-mark —all wethers, no ewes. I know you have sheep

of that ear-mark. There was a brand on the face resembling an O, but I could not say what exactly. By the Court; Most of those purchased at Lawrence’s were branded PD, and were face-branded like an O with a cross on the cheek. I couldn’t say if all were ewes, might have been a wether or two with that ear-mark. There were wethers amongst the lot—not so many as ewes. The face brand appeared to have been done some time. 1 could’nt say if it is an O, but partly circular. I can’t sec any face-brand on the skin produced. The face-brands did not look like a perfect circle. A certain wether at the door was one of those purchased of Mr. Bowler.

Mr. Greig acknowledged the sheep had the same ear-mark. The Court: This is one of those difficult cases —to prove the ownership of sheep after they have changed hands. This is a haid case, as it affects the honesty of Mr. O‘Dwyer in selling the sheep. It was admitted that the sheep in question were bought at Mr. Lawrence’s. Dr. Horne did everything in a straightforward manner, and bought the sheep at public auction. Mr. Rayner (by Greig): I can swear I bought the sheep of that face-brand—a large cross on the face—of Mr. Bowler. I did not know what ear-mark the sheep had I took from Mr. Lucas’s. I don’t remember any. I sold them to the present "William Robinson. I don’t remember the earmark at all. All were marked with the cross on the face. It was a burnt brand, very distinct. I remember your selling one sheep to W. Robinson. You found it at his father’s place, and you said it was not worth taking home. Mr. Robinson was aware the sin ep were there. You said you had lost some sheep and were looking for them.

By the Court: The cross was on when I bought them. The Court : The evidence is conflictingin this case. Mr. o‘Dwyer was really the party against whom the case lay. That some of this brand were mixed up in the lot sold there could be no doubt. • I can’t see that Dr. Horne is the real defendant in this case, and the plaintiff states no charge against Dr. Horne. It ought to be for Mr. o‘Dwyer to show bow he became possessed of the sheep ; but the plaintiff should take advice before taking further proceedings. Plaintiff nonsuited, and 10s. costs. r.I.TSKCK V J. RAWLINGS. This was a claim for goods supplied. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for plmjatiff £2 12s. 6d. and 9s. costs.