RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 318, 23 October 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Gisborne, Tuesday, October 19,1875. Before W. K. Nesbitt, Esq., R.M.; and J. B. Poynter, Esq., J.P. DeMoidrey v. AV. S.. Greene. Mr. Wilson for plaintiff; Mr. Rogan for defendant. This was an information laid by the complainant, against the defendant for having driven certain sheep through his (complainant’s) land in contravention of the 15th clause of the East Coast Sheep Act. Mr. Rogan admitted the offence, but urged that no damage had been done to complainant’s sheep, whereupon, Mr. AVilson stated that his client did not press for a vindictive penalty. He had brought the matter forward iu the interests of the public. For the defence, AV. S. Greene was put in the box, when Mr. Rogan informed the Bench that after his learned friend’s statement he should decline to produce' any rebutting testimony. The Bench considered that as this was the first case brought before the Court under the Act, a nominal fine of 5s would be inflicted, with costs 295. DejMoidrey v. AV. S. Greene. Mr. AVilson for plaintiff; Mr. Rogan for defendant. Information for breach of the 13th clause of the East Coast Sheep Act, for brandingand docking certain slieepwithout giving notice.

C. D. DeMoidrey examined, deposed to having received no notice from defendant of his intention to dock his sheep. He saw one of his sheep amongst those of defendant, and might reasonably expect there would be more. For the defence: John Cullen deposed to being in the employment of Captain Read. Mr. Greene had told him (witness) of his intention to dock his sheep. I don’t think that Captain Read told Mr. DeMoidrey of it. AV. S. Greene, sworn, stated, in crossexamination : That he was aware of the provisions of the Sheep Act. Mr. Rogan addresesd the Bench in mitigation of the penalty, inasmuch as defendant was under the impression that, although he had not strictly complied with the Act, plaintiff would have known that he intended to muster to cut and dock, from having told so many persons of that intention. The Bench considered the contravention of the Act an important one to sheepfanners, and imposed a fine of £3 and costs, 395. DeMoidrey v. Campion. Mr. AVilson for plaintiff; Mr. Rogan for defendant. Claim £2O or the possession of a certain dog. It appears that in a previous action of plaintiff’s against defendant, damages £5O for destruction caused to plaintiff’s sheep by defendant’s dog, an agreement was made to reduce damages to £3O on the understanding that the dog was not to cross from the other side of the AVaipaoa river, and plaintiff deposed the agreement w-as to the effect that if the dog came on his Kplaintiffi’s) side of the river it was to be shot to prevent further damage. If he had the dog he should shoot it. For the defence: Defendant deposed to having given the dog away some months ago-Cross-examined by Mr. AVilson : I gave the dog to Mr. Harrison, and told him if the animal was seen on plaintiff’s land, it would bo shot. The Bench considered that the agreement ought to be carried out and gave judgment for £2O to be reduced to Is if the dog be given up. McMillan v. Claridge. Mr. AVilson for plaintiff; Mr. Rogan for defendant. Claim £lB Is for wages paid by and alleged to be due to plaintiff by defendant as administrator in the estate of the late C. Claridge. Plaintiff, sworn stated: Deceased had agreed to pay bis share of amount sued for, as a partnership account. I have asked defendant to pay and he said he would as soon as he could. By Mr. Rogan: I did not settle accounts with deceased but he acknowledged the claim, before his death. A long cross-fire been Plaintiff. Counsel, and the Bench took place as to what was really the state of affairs, but little of benefit to his case was elicited. Several witnesses were also examined who did not profess to know much about the matter. For the defence: Edward Smith, to whom the wages were said to have been paid, deposed to having been engaged by McMillan as a blacksmith; it was no part of his duty to look after the stables, although he often did it to oblige his employer. Judgment for plaintiff £l7 16s, costs £6. Dempsey v. McCormick. Claim £lO 9s 6d goods sold and delivered. J udgment for plaintiff £lO 9s 6d and costs 455.