MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIII, Issue 141, 12 June 1878, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURT.

[Before R. Bollock, J. Scxa&de&s, nd G. Git-Lott.Hsqs;, J.J.P.] Trespass. Frank Stobo was charged hyH; H. Stafford with trespassing on his land, contrary to the provisions of the " Protection of Animals Act, i§?3. f) Mr Fell appeared for the defendant, and stated that he was a traveller for a Melbourne firm, nud was out for a day's shooting on Mr Green's land, when he inadvertently and without knowing it passed on to Mr Stafford's land. It wa3 quite an unintentional trespass on his part, and he extremely regretted it and hoped that the Bench would not treat the case severely. The Bench said that this being the first Case of the kind they should treat the case lenieutly, and fine the defendant £1 and costs. Charles de Vere Teschemaker was charged with trespassing on the land of C. B. Wither. Mr Acton Adams said that the summons was not served on Mr Teschemaker before he left for the South, but knowing that an information was to be laid he had requested Mr Adams to accept service and appear for him. Charles Bigg Wither: On Wednesday last I saw Mr Teachemaker carrying a gun in ' search of game in one of my paddocks. I was surprised to see him there as he was a perfect stranger to me and had not my permission, nor had he the courtesy to ask. I stood still aud looked at him and then passed : on. I was ou the road outside the fleldj and there waa only a low hedge between Us, ao that he could have advanced and made any explanation he wished. He did not do so and not caring to have any words with him I passed on, and he continued shooting. It was not a mete accidental or inadvertent trespass, but a wilful and substantial hreadh of the law } and a gross breach of good manners. Ouo in the position of the defendant deserved a heavier penalty than ah ordinary poacher, and he trusted the Bench would inflict it. Cross-examined: I received a letter ."from Mr Cunning on May 27th, asking permission for himself and Mr Greenfield to shoot on my property. I sent the following ieply:— "My Dear Sir— You and Mr Greenfield are quite welcome to shoot over my property next Wednesday or any other day, and as often as you pi ase. lam afraid, however, you will not get much sport, but do not scruple to shoot all you can, as I am quite sick of breeding hares for the benefit of the Richmond poachers. — Believe me.yoursvery truly, C. B. W." Next day Mr Canning asked permission for Mr Knyvett as well. This I gave. Knowing the circumstances under which Mr Teschemaker was probably there, I went to him, when he made a kind of explanation, expressed regret, and said : it should not happen again. I said I would accept his explanation for himself, but not for Mr Teschemaker. I exchanged salutations with Mr Greenfield by waving my hand to him. I thought that Mr Teschemaker waa one of his party. I did not think it my place to make auy remarks to Mr Greenfield. Mr Acton Adams having addressed the Bench called Mr Canning, who said: I had obtained permission from Mr Wither for myself, Mr Greenfield, and Mr Knyvett, to shoot on his ground. Last Wednesday I iuvited Mr Teschemaker to come for a day's shooting. I was on ray way with the "three to Mr Withers when I was stopped on business and had to return. I asked Mr Greenfield to introduce Mr Teschemaker to Mr Wither and to make it all right. Mr Teschemaker was certainly not to blame as he no doubt considered that I had a right to ask him. If anyone was in the wrong it was I. Mr Wither came to my house before the party returned and was evidently much annoyed, and spokj to me about the matter. I explained it to him and told him it was entirely my fault, and that I was williug to make any apology he might require, and would take care that it should not happen again. I may meution that after consulting with MiGreenfield I decided not to say anything to Mr Teschemaker as I felt sure it would annoy him very much. Had I done so lam certain he would have written an apology and explanation to Mr Wither. . . . Alfred Greenfield : I was out shooting with Mr Teschmaker, and was under the impression that Mr Canuing was so intimate with Mr Wither that he could invite a friend, explaining it afterwards. Mr Wither waa some way from us aud I waved my hat to him, and thought he was going round the hedge to join us in .the field,! Mr Teachemaker had no opportunity, of speaking to him. The Bench, after retiring for a f ew minutes, decided that a trespass had been 'committed, hut under the circumstances there had been no wrong-doing, and therefore the case would be met by a nominal fine. Fined 20s and costs. Ciyix Cases. Adams v. Burn.— Action to recover £4 professional costs. Mr Acton Adams stated that there was a set off 0f. 305, and that the balance of the debt was admitted. Judgment for plaintiff for £2 10s aud c6sts. Adams v. Cnot. — Action to recover £2 7s professional cost 3. Judgment for amount claimed and costs..: . r ... Westrupp v. Wise.— Action io recover £3, being the hire of the cutter Three. Brothers and crew for two days and nights. MiFell appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Bunny for the defendant. The action arose out of an engagement made for the hire of the cutter, which was alleged to have been broken. There was a set-off of £1 12s 3d, in connection with which "Cousin William," & missing Planet, Mrs Wise, and "a lot of other men " were strangely mixed up. Evidence having been taken at some length, judgment was given for £2 5s 9d and costs. (Julian v. Patrick Martin and other*. The plaintiff, a resident at Stanley Brook, sued the defendants, who are contractors, for £10 4s 9d, wages alleged to be due. A set-off of £9 10s 4Jd, the amount stated to have been paid oa plaintiff's account to -storekeepers in the district was lodged, and 17s were paid into Court. Mr Bunny appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Pitt for the defendants. The case %vas not concluded when our reporter left t*e Court.