RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, FOXTON.

Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue 21, 12 November 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, FOXTON.

WeiJxbmuy. N^yßMi!;;j^'\ 1880. ,£ : & (Refon&t. Wiara, Ei£-,."R.M.) • Uobart Ransfiuld, Thiunan Ransfiell, Thomas S<?yro«ur, Eiioka t'e Wnno, and Mohia Heremift, were charged by\Y. H. fcimcp* as follows r— " That on tho fidt day of November, 1880, at Otaki, did unlawfully drive dert»in cheep, tbea being lawfully on land -in the occupation of W. H. ISimcox •mil others, off tho said land." Mr Fitzhtfrberi for the prosecution, Mr C mh for *ho defence. Mr Cash pointed out that action 114 of "Tho. Jußtiees of .the Peace Act, 18G6," had had not been compiled with, as ho translation had been supplied with tho summons. MtfHtzherbert said the retrark of Mr Ca9b applied particularly to warrants.butas Hie deFendantr'nad accepted service and were in nttendanco non -translation could not be pleaded. Mr <'auh saidh" did not raise an objection. He simply pointed it out as a defect which shou'd bo cured, as it might affect the decision if the case were afterwards taken to a higher Court; . The case whs then prodeeded Y/ith. Mr Fit/hPibert, in opening the case for •he prosecution, said the proceedings were taken under tho section of " Tho Wellington Impounding Act," which provides that n penalty of £5 c;\n be initiated upon any person who drives cattle (either ureat or r-mall) ort land lawfully oecupiod by the own'T of such cattle Ho would apply for 1 'five t"> am«a 1 thn information in one or two particulars, so as to contain the precise words of the section. [Leave was granted, and tho information was made to rend as already given.] Th-? circumstances of the caso were that on tho first of November defendants drove a number of sheep belonging to Messrs SimcoS, Hadueld, and Rutherford off a block of land leased by them. This land had been first in the occupation of Bishop Hadfield, then of Mr A. J. Hadfield, and was now in the occupation of cnmplaiaimt and his partners. Defendants had recognised complainant as owners, and Enoka and Mohi had repeatedly received payment of rent ; also, the Ransfields and Seymour had served notices upon the complainant and his partners, which showed they recognised them as iv possession. These facts he would elicit in evidence. W. TI. Simcox, a sneepfftrm^r at Otafci, deposed — I have a lease of certnhi land at Otuki, part of Pukehott No. 4, also Wairou<romni, crown granted 5 these blocks adjoin. Messrs Hadfield and Rutherford are partners with me in the. land mentioned ; I have been interested in the land since January U 1878, when I joined Mr Hadfield ; I caused this information to be laid ; ou November 1 of tills year a Maori named Piripi came to me ; owing to what he said to me L rode out. on to I'ukehon No 4; I took my boy, George Jenkins ; I found that all my oheep had been driven off ; I saw four of the i defendants — the two Ranfields, Seymour, and Mohi ; they were sitting on a hill upon tho land ; my sheep were all beyond them, on the Wairotigomai block { I rode up to them and spoke to them in English i Robert Ransfleld said ho did not understand Enorlish, and pretended not to know what I said ; he knows Euulish. and I have frequently conversed with him in it ; I said, " Do you know you have driven my sheep off land upon which I have pa:d money this year?" He replied in Maori that he did not understand me ; 1 told my boy to notice the men ; later that day I did not notice any others with the men ; the sheep kept on trying to get on to the land, but tho defendants prevented 1 hem ; th( ro is no fence between the two blocks ; roy sheep graze (uomiscuously on one or thi? other ; the slie.'p were on Pukehou No. 4 belore being driven : they were driven iibout one-oighth of ;t mile beyond ray boundary ; the sheep have not roturncd up to this date ; befo'-e the first of November I received a notice from defi-ndants, written in Maori. [The notice in question W'"B dated Sept. 29, and gave Mr Simcox a week in which to remove his stock off the land. If not taken off before thai d;ite, they would leave the Wellington Impounding Act to settle the matter. ] I believe this notice to be in the handwriting of T. Runsfiell : I kuow the signatures of Knoka and Mohi ; the other .names are written by Kiinsfield; I did n-it remove my stcck, »nd I received anotht-r notice, wiiioh I produce. [ Chis notico, dated Oct. 25, ii forine4 Mr Simcox that as he h>d not removed the stock, tho defendants would do so.] I kuow tho handwriting of the Rms^elds, andEn"ka; I did not remove my stock ; when I entered into possession, Mr Hadfield wis in possession ; he had been farming it ; I have also done ho ; I produce receipts for money paid to Enokn and Mohi. [Receipts translated.] The receipts read all reftr to payments made to PuKehou No. 4 : oluco we have been in possession, r><} mo but ourselves has ocou pied it ; wo have also paid Land Tax and j County rates upon it : the in»in road to j Koxton runs through this land ; our side is uufenced, and persons driving sheep rhrouirh give ua notice, so that the shaep may be kept separate ; I have received a notice of thia kind from bo*h Thomas Runsfield and Seymour ; tha block is native land ; I hav<* paid sums to both Enoka and Mohi for the land, a!so to other natives ; no stock belonging to otiier persons grazes upon this land ; our sheep driven away on Vow mber 1 have not yet been allowed to

return. By Mr Cash— l do not produoe my lease of Pukehou; it is iv writin/, but I do not produce it ; I did not see the sheep driven by defendants ; I know they wero driven ; when I first saw them they were about oneeighth of a milo beyond my boundary ; later in the day they were driving them back ; I did not see them come beyond the boundary of No. 4 ; I w-is aware the natives claimed the land ; I know the handwriting- of several of the natives whose names appear to the notices ; 1 recognise the handwriting of Enoka and Mohi In tho first notice ; I believe » wo of the racipts produced were written by TCnoka ; somi of the others are written by Mr Hadfi-ld, and the others by myself ; tt short time since I wts summoned by defendants for rutting down a fence ■.hey hud erected on this land ; they claimed £60 ; they intended to enclose n certain poi tion of Pukehou No. 4 ; tho matter was enquired into by a Maori Committee before it came to Court ; I was present, and an understanding was come to; no arran.no-nv-nt wad made that they were to include less land ; the matter was postponed for one or two months, being a question between two lots of natives ; no arrangement was made that 400 and npt 600 acres was to be enclosed ; I was not present when one of tho Committee made a line along which the fence was to go ; I was present at only one meeting : 1 have heard the Committee decided to enclose a certain quantity ; I agreed to accept the decision of the first Committee raeetiog ; I heard another Com mittee had been formed ; the first, Commit tee was composed of Waikanae and W»ikuwa native* ; the original Committee was to determine whether certain portions of the block wqro to be enclosed. By MrPifzherbert— This Committee was not to affect our rights ; It wna to dttormine matters as between the natives themselves ; vre continue to occupy the land. Piripi (c Ka, a native, deposed— l live at Otaki; I know Pukehou No. 4; I Wits

there on 1, about the middle of p" Jwie. iiapX'S saw the defendants there j th"y tl ■tfere drJiflncr %» sheep ; they Wt.ro driving It thorn fitom Piikebpu No. 4to Wairongomai ; ti tfipjblapks adjoinYnJlr .Simcox and his bJy P were with me ; wtcrwards Taroi Eru cam.; o , MJ 1 Sitnoox spoke to the defendants; they' s took away all the sheep, and stayed there b tiu evening; when I any them driving, I a weut to Mr Simcox ; I at # them first ; they p were on Puketlou N<». 4 when t saw thorn ; t they hud beeu driving them whun I first 'I saw thorn, and h ivl not accomplished v their end then; I know Mr Hadfield; he was at Pukehou No. 4 about ten 1 years, and had stock upon it ; Mr Simcox had Rtock upon it also ; 1 remained there t till night j .the aheop remained^pn..ypairo,n-.. j gomai until night, and next morning had 1 returned. ' By Mr Cash— l buw a sheep that had i been bdrnod j Mr SimcoS spoke to defend* ant- 1 about it ; they did "not "aslcT me" where the burned she^p was ; I did sot bear one of the defendants ask me ; I saw the de ■ tendants drive the sheep ;* it ' Was" ifa «the murainif ; I w&h alone thsn,"aAd yreai to" tell Mr Sira^os ■ I am in charge of the run ; I was some distance avr.iy from the mea when I first fla v them driving the sheep ; I was as fai off as it in to Howe's Hotel from here ; I co'ild see they were men, and when I came back I suw the defendants ; 1 vf.xa not with Air Simcox when 1 siw them driving the sheep ; when we got up lo them, they were sitting on a hill $ I don't know hoty long elapsed botweeii the time when I first puw tlio men driving tho shaep, an<i returned ; I cannot swear to the individuals who wi-ro driviag the sheep. By Mr Fifzherbert — Tho party on the ridge were tho same us I saw driving the sheep 5 after dinner they drove the sheep. By Mr Cash — They went past the boufrdury of Pukehou No. 4 after dinner fo drive tho s*ieep ; I know the boundary. Tarci, a native bny belonging to Otaki, deposed — I know the block Pukehou No. 4 ; on tho evening of November I Mr Simcox's sheep were being driven thence to Wairon"•omai } the defendants were driving them : I saw them ; I remaiued there until late at night ; defendants did the came ; I remember Air Hadaeld on Pukehou for ten years; he has been keeping stock there for some time. By Mr Cash— l am about 16 years old lam more thau 10 ; I have known Mr Hadfield all my life ; I got to Pukehou about dusk on the day mentioned ,' notwithstanding, F saw all the defendants; on the first of November I saw the defendant! at a distance ; on tho second, I saw them closer ; I could not distinguish them individually. By Mr Filzherbert — The men were riding ; the horses wero driving the sheep ; the haws belonged to defendants. By Mr Cash— l know a child was drowned on tbe first of November, but am not aware the defendants left Pukehou that day at 4 o'clock. George Jenkins, a boy in the emploj of Mr Sinocox, ileposed— On the fist November, I went with Mr Simcox to Pukehou ; I saw defendant* there sitting on Ptikuhon, between tho sh^ep and Pukehou; I stayed there two or three minutes; I am 17 years oM ; I cannot remember where I was born ; nboiit » year ngo I went to Work for Mr HadfioUl ; I have gone along the road with Seymour, whun lie has been driving sheep through, to keep tho sheep separate. By Mr Cash — About 10 or 11 o'clock on November 1, we went to Pukehou; Pirjpi would be abio to sec tha men beforo we did, about half an hour; the burned sheep was not on Pukehou ; I think it must have been tired, and lay down in the fern, and that the fern had been act alight ; parties were engaged at the time clearing fern for Mr Simcox. By Mr Fitzherbert — I made a mistake when I enid Air Simcox had men employed clearing fern at this time. Eru, an o!d and rather doaf native, deposed — I li*ve known Mr Hadfield a long time ; ho has been in occupation of Pukehou No. 4 a long time ; Mr Simcox is now in possession of the land ; he nnd Mr Hadfield have paid money to tho nnlives; I am one of the lessors, nnd have received moneys from the Bishop, Air Hadfield, and Mr .-'iuicox ; otlior natives have received mouuy for ihi; land. By Mr Cash — The land was leased to the Hishop ; afterwards it want through the Court, but tlip lea^e still continues, and is now to Mr John Hadfu-ld and Mr Siiucox ; tho natives ngrtunt with Bi*h<>|> Ha'lficld tv allow iiia nephew to remain in possession. A. J. Hadfield deposed — Pnkehou No, i h part of a r :n we have held for 16 years; I went on in 1806, as p>»rt owner and manager; from 187t> I took the whole thirg over, and after that took in Messrs Simcox and Rutherford ; I have held the land uninterruptedly since 1866 ; I have paid money for rent to Mohi and En ka; thi< others never showed ihoir noses in tho concern ; I rejo^nide the signatures of the natives ; EnoK'a te Wano^has-dwrn his rent up to tbe end of 1881 ; the-e receipts are signsd by Mfthi and Enoka ; we hava been in exclusive occupation since 1866; the Ransfields and Seymour have always given me notice when they wished to hunt, pigs or cited a horse ; the occupation is etill in our hauds. Wo never gave permission to them to drive our sheep off. ■ ' ' By Mr Cash — Defendants have never claimed the land, or part of it ; I was aware Mohi whs fencing a short time ago portion of tho land ; I was present at the Committee enquiry, and heard they chimed portion of tho land ; I was not present when the fence was knocked down ; I saw the notices handed in ; I g-ithered from the intic«* they wanted to claim what was not their own ; I was in Court when tho list case was decided; I caunot say what was the reason the c.iSa was thrown out; I have forgotten ; I know the land has gone through the Court ; I have seen a copy of the order of the Court ; I rest my claim upon possession ; I do not say whether my claim to possess i» n legal one ; the lawyer will answer that . By Mr Fitzherbeit — I have not given permission to tho natives to drive off the sheep Mr Simcox, recalled — I did not give per j mission to the defendants to drive off th j sheep. Mr C ish, foi the defence, submitted the defendants had acted in the n*seition of a right or claim. The Act required thai plaintiff* should show they ware lawfully in possession. Mr Siincox, who was in posKestiou, had shown no loaee, nor had Mr Hadfi«ld. He therefore submitted no proof had been shown thit Mr Siincox bad a claim At all upon the block. Evidence had been given of other quanvls betweon the parties ove; the land, showing tliatfthe question of the lesprctive rights of the two parties wan involved. Upon a previous occasion, the question of title being involved, tho Court held Mr could not be punished for knocking down the fence. In this case the question of title was involved also. He objected, first, thnt the question of title was involved, and secondly, that what h:d been done was jn assertion and maintenance of a right. Upon these grounds be asked that the complaint be dismissed. Mr Fitzherbert applied for leave to address the Court oil points of law raised by Mr Cash After argument, the Court granted the application. Mr Fiuberbert pointed oat that the

.aid, and th uts: sffieref oro^fte Jjtu B'ioa of ;itlo was. not j^olved. &kt:T w« second r>oint, -pMJKssiotiiavolved aptar rljjjbt until )C2tipj;ti^waß"leKaUy determined.-' Mft<pJn replied No title whatever bad ocen that day. Where wot* these agreemetfU f The two claimants <#SJM in partial occupation, and hi 3 clients oo#tended the plaintiff was in unlawful occupation. The order of the Native Landa Court had upkeld the iuteroat of the natives. The Court then adjourned for one hour. Upon resuming, His Worship, in jfiving judgment, said that after hearing the evidence, -ha found tivib the defence, consisted of^two^ p lints; ffrsi, that "of* titled Sna second,' that of occupation. Pealing with • the second point first, he beld that occupation bad been clearly proved by the plaintiff, y. r Badfleld " had- been Hying in undinturbed occupation for 16 yean, in rightful possession, and it had been dearly shown that the plaintiff was no mere trespasser. The question, of title was more important. The defendants questioned the plaintiff^ risrhb *iW ocenpy the land, and commit ed the *8t oompbiihed of for the purpose of asserting their claim to tho land. The notices they had sent to the plaintiff ha<l been recognised by Messrs siincox and Hiifleld. We therefore ruled that he could . not convict the defendants, as a question of title was involved. The charge waa therefore diHraissed Mr C-ssh applied for costs, and said it. was the practice to grant them in such ca-ies. Mr Fitzherbert arsrued that as his Worship had no jurisdiction, he had no power to make an order as to costs. Mr Cash replied at length, submitting that if his Worship had power to dismiss, he had power to make an order as to cost,-!. After some further aigument, his Wor- ' ship said he could not allow costs. The Court was then adjourned.