Untitled

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIII, Issue 6, 20 March 1878, Page 2

The evidence of the plaintiff, Kerr, and the witness Stickland went to show that tho defendant's sheep were in the habit of straying on to the land of the plaintiffs, known as the Gorge Flats, and that the defendant, by his servants, when (driving them back, drove about ?0 sheep belong to the plaintiffs, and Stickland said that he was in the habit of sheering those sheep and dipping them and again turning them out. For the defence William Biggs was called, who proved that he was in Wiesenhavern's employ last year, and that Sticklaud was at that time also in the defendant's service During the whole time he (Biggs) Was there; he only saw one sheep shorrf by Stickland, and that was a scabby one, which, alter being shorn, was clipped and turned out. The defendant denied ever having told his servants to bring any of the plaintiffs' sheep in with his, and the only one ever shorn was the one mentioned by Biggs, and it was shorn for the purpose of dipping. There was another witness called, and counsel then addressed the Court, after which his Worship, in giving judgment, said that he intended to avail himself of the'provisions of the Resident Magistrate's Act, and to decide this case on equity and good conscience. The first claim made by the plaintiff was for trespass, but he thought it was clearly proved that Kerr had given the defendant permission to go on tho plaintiffs' land, and therefore there was no trespass, and lie thought, as the run was not fenced and the sheep were consequently bound to wander that Kerr had acted rightly in giving such permission. The plaintiffs were bound by their letter of the 16th of January, in which they only claimed £23 10s. There was no evidence whatever of an)' conversion of sheep and lambs, and that with regard to the shearing was very contradictory^ The witness Strickland admitted that he was not a very truthful person, and \w was not exact as to the number of sheep. Then there was the positive oath of Mr Wiesenhavern that these sheep were never shorn* So the question was narrowed down to the one scabby sheep, and he thought what the defendant did in regard to that sheep was a most neighborly act. With regard to the cow and calf, that stood on a different footing. The defendant had some reason for refusing to give up the cattle to Stickland, but the cow had now given herself up. The order of the Court would be that the calf should be returned to the plaintiff or its value £2, together with costs .£2 Us. The Court then adjourned. •