RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1145, 12 September 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

This Day. [Before M. Price, Esq., R.M.] There were no cases of a criminal nature set down for hearing to-day. Civil Cases. Davis v. Jones. In this case there was no appearance of plaintiff so the case was struck out. Muldoon v. Scrimgeovr. Claim £29 damages for a bull trespassing. Mr Kenny appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Nolan for the defendant.

Mr Kenny opened the case for the plaintiff, and called John Muldoon, who deposed : lam a farmer at Matawhero. Defendant is possessed of a bull with horns of a “reasonable ” length. It doe not look a very well bred bull. I have been amongst cattle since I was a child. Defendants property adjoins mine. My property is fenced. The bull came into my place on the 14th April, 4th May, ana 27th July. When the bull trespassed it broke down the slip rails and broke the wire attached to the post. It cost me three mens labor and timber to repair the damage done. I saw the bull in the paddock. He walked out of his own accord on the first occasion and the last time he was rescued as I went to impound. The cattle in my paddock were of a good breed. I had 6 heifers running in the paddock where the bull was. The defendants bull is about 4 years old. I estimate the damage to the heifer at £4, The mother was a particularly fine milch cow. The heifer was 18 months old. The next heifer was only twelve months old and was injured. I have lost a lot of time over this matter. On the 27th July I told defendant of the damage done to my cattle by his cattle, particularly to the calf that was injured. He did nat deny that his bull had trespassed on my place and bulling my heiefers. He said he would come and see about it.

By Mr Nolan: Defendant told me he could not attend to the bull at the time that he was ill. One of the heifers is springing. Major Westrup and Morris told me that the heifer injured on the 27th July was of mature age. I saw the bull in my paddock on the 4th of April. This was the same bull I tried to pound. My fence is a very good one, unless it gets chopped down in the night. I get from .I’lo to £l5 for my he : fens, There was damage done to the pasture by

the cattle running about, in consequence of bull being there. By Mr Ker.ny : I did not see the fence broken down. Tlie paddock is a 15 acre paddock. By the Bench : The actual expense I have been put to was three men half-a-day, and some posts, rails, staples, &c. The three animals are of no use for the purpose of dairy cattle. 1 don't know what 1 co.ild get for them.

John Sharp and Charles Macfarlane were called, and corroborated plaintiff’s statement.

Janies McFarlane made a statement as to the rails being damaged.

William Jones was then called, and stated that he had very little experience. (Mr Kenny said that this witness was not of any use to fi rn, so lie would desist from further examining him.) Mr Kenny said this was the plaintiff’s case.

Mr Nolan opened the case for the defendant, and ca’led the defendant, James Scrimgeo t, w' o stated : I am a farmer at Matawhero. I know the plaintiff. On the 28th July last I lud a co iveisf'tion with plaintiff abo it my b ill, which he said had been trespassing on his prope.’ty. About a fortnight ago Major Westrup, Mr Morris, plaintiff, and myself went into the paddock to see the heifers which plaintiff alleged had been injured. The heifers did not appear to lure been injured at a 1!. Plaintiff keeps his fences in a very bad condition, Plaintiff has bulls of his o' -n.

Charles Young s'jated th t be was a farmer and had some s;oc': o* iVan -lfFs property, and he removed them. The fe-ces on plaintiff’s property very bad repair. AVilliam Morris called and stated that he was a cattle-owner at Matawhero, and that 10 daysFago to see some heifers. The hei2e s we eof different ages. The two eldest were in calf, but the youngest was not. He considered there was no damage done to them.

Cross-examired by Mr Kenny : I keep my cattle for grazing. I hrve also several cows in milk. I have about 300 head. You might be about two’or three months out in the age of a 2 year-old beast. Went with Major Westrup and defendant. Charles West *up called and stated he had 10 years’ experience in cattle. Went about 14 days agoj'to |seelJsome • heifers with last witness, on plaintiff’s property. The largest heifer was in calf, but not the second one. The young one appeared to be in calf. By Mr Kenny : You can tell the age of a heifer by its teeth. By the general appearance of a beast you can guess its age. If I was keeping a dairy farm I should keep my heifers until they were 2 years old. I should consider that a bull getting among young cattle would be very injurious, and I should not like to see one amongst my cattle. By the Bench : The difference would be £3 in selling a cow which had calfed too soon and one which was of a premature age. I value the first heifer at £7 and the second at £3 10s.

George Hyland was called, and stated that he knew the bull in question in Kapanui paddock in April last. He was ill and they did not think he would live. The bull was in Parsons’s bush in May last. None of the fences were broken, and he was never missed from there. Plaintiff’s fences are in a very bad state.

Cross-examined by Mr Kenny: The bull was never out of the Kapanui paddock in April last. I saw him there night and morning. Defendant’s fences were always good, but the plaintiffs were not. I used to go round the defendant’s fences every day. There were no sheep in the Kapanui paddock, only cattle. The bull was said to be in Wright’s paddock in July last. If I was told that the bull had been defendant’s paddock in April last I should be surprised. This closed the case for the defendant. Mr Nolan then "addressed the Court on behalf of the de endant. Mr Kenny replied. His Worship said he was perfectly satisfied that a trespass of the bull had been per mitted to take place, and for that he would allow £5, but with regard to the special damages claimed he would not allow one penny, seeing that plaintiff had allowed bulls to run with his own stock. Judgment would, therefore, be for £5, and costs £6 3s. He had no difficulty in deciding that the bull in question belonged to defendant. The adjourned case of McKay v. The South British Insurance Company was called on. Mr Kenny appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Brassey for the defendants. This was a case in which the plaintiff, D. G. McKay, sued South British Insurance Company for £lOO, due on a policy of insurance on the Ri.e Station, at Te Arai, and not paid over to the plaintiff. Mr Brassey, on behalf of the defendants, said that he .vould apply fo an adjournment of the case. He might sta,e that in this case a second summons had been served. The first summons had been served on the Gisborne Agent of the Company, which was found to be of no avail, so that the plaintiff had taken upon himself to summons as the defendant in this cause, Mr James Kirker, o. Napier, who was the principal agent at that town. The summons, he might state, had only been served last Jat-irday, and the defendant was ordjre-. by that summons to appear to. day. There was, therefore, no time for his client to consult counsel, nor had any time been allowed him to consult the office in Auckland.

His Wo ’s'lip said that he considered the time was rather un -easoi.able, and that asking a person, served in Napier on Saturday, to appear on the following Tuesday was quite out of the question. Mr Brassey, continued : He said that he had several important witnesses to call who had to be brought up from Napier. It was a most important case, and he had spoken to the learned counsel on the other side of his intention to apply for an adjournment. Mr Kenny said he had no objection to the adjournijent so long as the costs were paid by the defendants. It was an error on the part of his clerk that the case had not been made out for a later date. It was found that Mr Shelton, who was the agent for the company in Gisborne, had only the power of taking premiums. He was willing to allow the costs of the case up to the present to go with the cause.

Mr Brassey, in reply to His Worship, said that his defence to tlie action would be that plaintiff had no interest in the property in question at the time of the fire, and that at the time the proposal was made for insurance the property belonged to McKay, Teat, and Co., and not to plaintiff solely ; also that the usual conditions of six months’ notice in the Policy of Insurance had not been complied with, seeing that it was over 13 months since the fire took place, and no notice except the summons had been given, Another objection was that the goods burnt were not enumerated, nor was the particular part of the building where they were alleged to be at the time of the fire. It was agreed that the case should stand over until the 26th September, the costs to abide the action ; and in the meantime the plaintiff was to furnish a list of goods lost at the fire, one to the Court, and one to the defendants.