CARLYLE R.M. COURT.

Patea Mail, Volume VI, Issue 513, 29 April 1880, Page 2

CARLYLE R.M. COURT.

Tuesday, before Captain Wray. DISPUTED GRAZING CONRACT p.e MAORI LAND. John Hurley, farmer, Whenuakura, was summoned for alleged illegal rescue of 9 cows on the south road, while they were being driven to the pound for alleged trespass on native reserve at New Taranaki. The case was peculiar, as showing the nature of a grazing contract with a native tribe, or with one member of the tribe as representing the rights of the tribe. The grazing land is native reserve set apart by the Government, and occupied by a particular tribe, which grows grain, owns cattle, and carries on some agriculture. The difficulty appears to have arisen from one native making a verbal -arrangement to graze a pakeha’s cattle, the tribe not being aware of the contract, if contract there was. Mr Hamerton appeared for the defence. Mr W. Williams acted as interpreter. The evidence was as follows Takouou Komene, one of a tribe at Whenuakura and New Taranaki, deposed —I brought this action because the defendant rescued cattle which I was taking to the pound, on the 21st instant, on the highway opposite Mr Derritt’s place. I took- the cattle from dur farm in New Taranaki that daj’.- I; was driving nine cows when Mr. Hurley rushed up and

the cattle back. I told liitn to let 'aflhjm alone, as I was taking them to the fomid. Mr Hurley said I had no right to pound them because I had taken them off the Government land. Another cause for impounding them was that the cattle had broken down onr fences. Those cattle had been trespassing three weeks on onr land. The land has been in our occupation four years, and is fenced in. It is a reserve given by the Government to our . j nbe.. The, defendant, took thq.cattle away.... when he interfered on the high road.

Mr Hamerton—l wish to ask how much land they occupy. The Magistrate—lt is nothing to do with the question as to how long the tribe may have occupied the land.- We cannot go into the question of title, so long as they are in occupation.

Mi Hamerton—ls he not aware that the land on which their cattle were is the University reserve ?—Xo, I do not know whether that land belongs to the Government. it is at New Taianaki. Mi- Hamerton—l have come here to prove that Mr Hurley did not rescue these cattle at New Taranaki, which the summons alleges. The Magistrate—He says they were impounded at New Taranaki, not that the offence of rescue was committed there. Mr Hamoiton—But the sworn information says the rescue took place at New Taranaki.

The Magistrate—That is a misunderstanding, and is immaterial. Witness—l did not speak to Mr Hurley previously about the cattle. Is the laud farmed by witness or his uncle?—Witness—No, it is no more his ;: than it is mine.

Does lie owe any money to Mr Hurley for cutting wheat ?—Yes. Dul ho not talk with Mr Hurley about putting his cattle on the land as soon as the wheat was threshed ?—No,

Were not the cows put into the stubble a day or two after threshing the wheal ? —No, the}' were put on the land about the time the Native Commission were in Carlyle, but my uncle expostulated witli Mr Hurley about the cattle being there. Did not the witness go to Mr Hnr'ey’s place to ask if he was ready to put the cattle on the land ?—No.

Was there any talk about water being in the jxiddock ?—No, but there is water in the paddock. Did not the natives take possession of the cattle again, after they left the south road ?—Yes, I was again trying to force the cattle towards the pound, and Mr Hurley continued to stop them, but we did not get possession. By the bench—There were 9 cattle ; and I am claiming damage for feeding three weeks and for breaking fences. Tingaruru, a young man, said lie was helping to drive the cattle to the pound. He corroborated the other witness. He bad not heard that these "cattle were there to graze. He heard old Komene tell others that these cattle must be driven off to the pound. Tome, an elderly native, said : I do not know of any arrangement made for grazing these cattle on that land. I saw them trespassing. I asked Mr Hurley’s wife if she knew whose cattle were on that land, and she said they were her husband’s. I told her to tell her husband to fetch the cattle away. That was the day before the cattle were driven to the pound. : John Hurley, the defendant, deposed that ; About February oth 1 made a verbal arrangement with the elder Komene about cutting some wheat ; and at the same time I had a conversation with young Komene, the complainant, who asked if I should like to put cattle into the stubble after the threshing. I said I would. He said I could put them there if I paid the same per head as Gower did last year. I consented. He came to me after the threshing ami asked if I was ready to put the cattle on the land, I said I was, but I must see about the water. I did so, and then put 'J cows on tire land. I did not put three on at any time. - Toure expressed surprise when I told him of my arrangement with 3*oung Komene, M 3' wife told me that Tome had said I must remove the cattle. Young Komene has been swearing fulsety. Mr Hamerton, for the defence, contended that there was a distinct verbal contract made with young Komene, ami although Komene now denied any contract, 3 7 ct the cattle were allowed to continue on the land three weeks without molestation. The natives thought .it would pa3’ them better to put the cal tie in pound and claim damages, that being an act of native treachery.-, The tribe was indebted to Mr Hurley for threshing their wheat, and they now tried to wipe off that debt by this .treacherous device. As a point of law, young Komene was not in lawful possession of these cattle when, driving them to the pound. He was 6nly : a joint owner, and the tribe did not appear to accept the responsibility of his action. The defendant had grazed-these cattle, and had rescued them in an honest belief that he had made a proper contract. Sir Hamerton also objected that the Court,could not convict in this case without at least two justices, and he would move in arrest of judgment, if nccessar3 f . The Magistrate said there appeared to be no business-like agreement tu graze these cattle. To rescue cattle under the circumstances is an extreme course to take, as the defendant had Ids remedy. The defendant certainly should have allowed the cattle to have gone to the pound, and thou taken his proper remedy. In convicting tiro defendant, the lowest fine is 40s, and that would be the fine in this case, with costs. Such disagreements, especial 13’ where different races are concerned, should not be settled by the violent means used in this case.