R. M.'s COURT— GISBORNE

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume II, Issue 138, 21 February 1874, Page 2

R. M.'s COURT— GISBORNE

Thursday, February 19, 1874. [Before W. K. Nesbitt, Esq., R.M.] GILMORE V. MACDONALD Claim £27 10s disputed account made for grass seed. Defendant paid £l2 10s into Court. Thomas Gilmore sworn, states : I leased a paddock to Mr. McDonald at £1 per acre. Mr. Drummond surveyed it and said there were 27 acres. 1 never authorised Aislabie to pay money on my account to captain Read. McDonald : When Aislabie cut grass On the paddock for me, did Read send natives there? Y’es, and 1 turned them off and they cut no grass. A. McDonald sworn, states: I acknowledge the agreement of Lease from Gilmore. M hen at Wairoa, 1 heard that Read claimed 5 acres of the land. There is more than 27 acres in the paddock, but 1 only leased 27. Aislabie wrote to me and said that. Read was going to put natives in. When in Napier I went to the Register office and saw that Read had five shares in the Grant. 1 got the produce and paid for it. Aislabie gave an order on Read for me.

Mr. Aislabie sworn, states : Mr. McDonald told me to cut grass seed in the packlock alluded to, after he went to Wairoa I got a letter from captain Bead warning me not to ent the grass. McDonald was not aware that Read had any of the seed. McDonald only got half the produce from the land, and the other half he got, from Read under sufferance. 1 was authorized by Gilmore to pay the money to captain Read. Judgment for defendant with costs. CAMERON V. GREENE. Mr. Cuff for plaintiff; Air. Wilson for defendant. Plaintiff sues for eleven sheep and their increase valued at £9. 11. Cameron sworn, states: I am a sheep owner. My brands are registered, my sheep ear mark is a slit in each ear. I found eleven sheep with my ear mark on them amongst defendant’s sheep. I claim those sheep. Defendant allowed me to take four sheep that were shorn but. not branded ; but he would not allow me to take the eleven that were branded. I did not shear them because my tar brand was not on them. There were seven breeding ewes. Air. Cuff was about eliciting from the plaintiff their probable increase and clip of wool, when Air. Wilson said he would at this stage express his objection to this line of evidence. He maintained that Cameron can not claim increase. Plaintiff said he could swear positively to there being four wet ewes among those missing the sheep had all been shorn. By Air. Wilson : 1 bought them from Air. Kempthorne, they were branded K, ear mark one slit on the right ear, no other mark. I bought them about eighteen months ago. I put a slit on the other ear. I put my own tar brand on, but it was not on these 11 sheep. I also got sheep from Air. Parsons with slit on the right ear. I was 90 sheep short with my ear brand on them, at the last shearing ; I cannot positively identify these particular sheep as among the number missing except by the ear mark. I cannot say how many among those missing were sheep that I bought from Mr. Kempthorne. By Mr. Cuff: It is not possible to swear positively to these sheep, or any other sheep, except by their brands and ear marks. You cannot tell one sheep from another of the same breed. William Smith, sworn, states: I was at Greene’s mustering. I saw the sheep with Greene’s brand and Cameron’s ear mark on them. The brand had been put on since shearing. James Meldrum, sworn, states : I am Inspector of Brands. I produced my book of brands. Cameron’s ear mark has been duly registered and copied in my book. There is no other person iu the Bay with this brand that I am aware of. I hare been twenty years a sheep farmer. It is invariably the custom to give up sheep in a case such as this. Mr. Wilson to plaintiff : Have you sold any sheep ?—No. - — W. S. Greene, sworn, states : I have had these sheep since 1871. When I got them

they had a slit in each ear. The four sheep I returned had not my tar brand ou them.

By Mr. Cuff: I bought the sheep with this ear mark on them from Andrew Ratapa, they are | Leicesters. 1 may have shorn a few sheep without my brand ou them. Andrew Ratapa, states: I know Greene. I sold him sheep. They had a slit in each ear. I sold 106. They were Leicesters. L have seen all the sheep lately. 1 drove them. I don’t know the eleven sheep from the rest. By Mr. Cuff: Some were nose branded, and some were not.

Robert Goldsmith, sworn states: Greene has some sheep with a slit in each ear, about 50 or 60. Some are back-marked. Greene has had these sheep for 12 months to my knowledge. Greene shore some sheep with Johnson’s ear mark. The Magistrate said he thought the balance of evidence was in favor of the defendant, but, he would take time to consider his decision and give judgment tomorrow morning. read v. DICK. Mr. Cuff appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Wilson for defendant. Claim £2O for dogs alleged to be owned by defendant, worrying, and killing sheep belonging to the plaintiff. Aislabie, sworn, deposed to having seen defendant’s dog worrying plaintiff's sheep. W. H. Tucker, on being sworn, was asked by Mr. Cuff if, as a sheepfarmcr, he was of opinion that the plaintiff had suffered any damage beyond the sheep killed and bitten by reason of the dogs having driven them. Mr. Wilson objected to the question being put. Mr. Tucker said yes, they have. Only one of the dogs produced in Court was identified as the property of defendant, and judgment was given for plaintiff for £lO, one half of the amount claimed. BOUSFIELD V. HARRISON AND MATH?ESON. Mr. Cuff for plaintiff; and Mr. Wilson for defendants. Claim £5O for survey of part of the Rangatira block. O. L. W. Bousfield, states : 1 was instructed by the defendants’ agent, Mr. Hamlin, to survey the Rangat ira block. 1 engaged to do it at -Id an acre. The amount was £95 10s 8a I have received monies on account of the survey from Mr. Hamlin, and now claim £5O balance due. 1 have applied to Mr. Hamlin for the balance and was referred bv him to the defendants. By Mr. Wilson : Hamlin engaged me and Hamlin payed me some money ou account. Mr. ALathieson, one of the defendants, sworn states : I deny owing the money to plaintiff. Hamlin is the responsible party, as the contractor with whom we engaged to survey the block. Adjourned for a month, to obtain Mr. Hamlin’s evidence. CUFF V. ML'J.LOOLY. Adjourned for three weeks. TK NIRA V. COLLINS. Mr. Wilson for plaintiff. Claim, £lO Amount of costs in re Collins v. Te Nira, in which case plaintiff did not appear. Te Nira now sues Collins for costs therein and got judgment for £6. I’ITAU V. HEAD. Claim, £5O. Adjourned for a fortnight. PETA KOMENA V. KILKOLLY. Claim, £l5 ; value of a horse, property of plaintiff, and illegally in possession of defendant. Judgment’ for plaintiff £7 and costs. To be reduced to £2 on the horse being returned to plaintiff. Friday. CAMERON V. GREENE. —JUDGMENT. Tt seems to me that the plaintiff bases his claim to eleven sheep on the presence of his registered mark alone, and has otherwise no positive knowledge that the sheep are his property, in fact his own evidence throws some doubt on the fact of those sheep being a portion of the flock purchased by him from Mr. Kempthome. The defendant swears positively that those sheep have been in his possession for some years, and that the marks on them were similar to that registered by the plaintiffs. This evidence is corroborated by the native from whom the sheep were purchased. /As I have no reason to doubt this evidence I am of opinion that judgment must be for defendant, and I give judgment accordingly, with costs.