Patea R.M. Court.

Patea Mail, 2 November 1881, Page 3

Patea R.M. Court.

Tuesday, before Mr C. A. Wray, R.M. DISPUTED PRICE OF TIMBER. Judgment was now given in the case of C. F. Barker v. Langley Brothers, storekeepers at Manaia. Magistrate said this was an action to recover balance due on a verbal contract for the sale of timber, the question being as to price." Plaintiff and his witness swore that the price agreed for was 16s 6d per 100 feet. Defendant and his witness swore the price was to be 14s 6d. This evidence being so contradictory, inference as to probable cost must be drawn from other evidence. On the whole, it appeared the defendants > had made a mistake as to the price, and judgment must be given for the amount qlaimed, £23 2s 6d, and the costs as follow : Summons 13s, additional summons Bs, hearing fee 12s, sub-peanae for witness Days ss,

costs of adjournment to take evidence at Hawera £2 sa, witness’s expenses from Manaia £1 7s and day’s allowance 10s ; total £5 17s. NATIVES IMPOUNDING CATTLE. Taufoa was sued for recovery of poundage fees which had been charged and obtained in excess of legal right, his people having impounded 16 cattle belonging to Bremer Brothers, Whenuakura, for trespassing on his land, and for alleged damage to fruit trees near Tauroa’s pah, up the river. The cattle had been impounded at Patea, and the charges made (and paid under protest) were Is 6d per head for damage and Is 6d for driving fee ; total £2 Bs. Mr Hamerton appeared for plaintiffs. Tauroa made a preliminary speech, saying : The party against me is a pakeha. lam a Maori, and my name Tauroa. My word to the Magistrate is that he should forget I am a Maori, and forget that the white man is a white man. The Magistrate said the Court did not require a lecture ; that the Court could not take notice of distinctions between races. Evidence was then called. It appeared that Bremer’s cattle and Tauroa’s horses and other animals had gone on the same piece of adjoining land, there being no fence. The question was, whether Bremer’s cattle had strayed into a native cultivation and damaged the fruit trees. Tauroa’s case was. that he gave notice to Bremers that their cattle were trespassing ; and as they were not removed (as promised) within a week, he impounded 16 cattle on the eighth day after the verbal notice The cattle had got through the fence, and being among the fruit trees, they were impounded. Tauroa admitted that the cattle did not damage the trees on that day, but had damaged them frequently, ever since the Bremers occupied that land.

The plaintiffs’ case was that no recent damage could be seen in the orchard, that the fence to the cultivation was not sufficient according to the Ordinance, and that special damage could not be claimed for occasions previous to the day of impound.ing. L. Gr. Bremer, 6. F. Bremer, and C. Prouse each spoke to there being rjo recent damage to the trees. Tauroa, in his simplicity, fancied, he could claim for all the damage done to his orchard on previous occasions, and did not understand the law.

Judgment for plaintiff, with costs. Tauroa seemed unable to understand it. He said he would not pay fourpence. Then he said he would not care if the others had paid half. If the plaintiffs have had any benefit from Tauroa by using unfenced land, it would be a judicious concession to make him a present of the money in this case.