RESIDENTMAGISTEATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Volume III, Issue 233, 26 March 1866, Page 3

RESIDENTMAGISTEATE'S COURT.

« (Before A. J. Elles, Esq., E.M.; W. H. Calder, Esq., J.P. ; W. H. Pearson, Esq., J.P.; and D. Hankison, Esq;, J.P.) Henry Campbell was fined ss, or 24 hours' imprisonment, for drunkenness. Crvii. Cases. y i HOKOMONA PATH T. IAWLOK. This was an action brought by the plaintiff (better known as Solomon, an aboriginal native, residing at Eiverton) against D. S. Lawlor, Esq., also of the same place, to recover the sum of £20 damages, for that the defendant on or about the 23rd day of February last wrongfully converted to his own use a certain filly, the property of plaintiff. Mr Beid* appeared for plaintiff, Mr Harvey for defendant. Mr Beid having opened the case for the plaintiff, Mr Harvey said he would admit the fact that the defendant had taken the animal in dispute, and branded it ; the question for the court to decide from the evidence being simply that of its idendity. John E. Watson deposed that he knew a grey mare belonging to Solomon, and a bay filly, its foal. Could not tell when the filly wasborn. Witness wanted to purchase the filly fiom Solomon, two years ago. It was at that time sucking the grey mare. Had seen Solomon riding the grey mare, and the filly following him, several times. Last saw the filly on the 24th February, at South Eiverton, it was branded with the defendant's brand. The brand was quite fresh. Solomon demanded the filly from defendant, who said he would give him in charge if he offered to touch it. It was the same filly witness bad seen with the grey mare, two. paja t>t& r & J» m^'

examination the witness stated the filly was about three months old when he first saw it. It was a bay filly, with black legs. There might be a few grey hairs across the face. Could not swear it was the same foal he had seen sucking the grey mare. It was the same he had seen running with the mare. Williamßeavencorrobratedtheevidence of the former witness, and in addition stated that he was present with Solomon and the defendant, when a conversation took place with respect to the mare and foal, and it was discovered Jhat the foal's tail had been "pulled" and no one appeared to know who had done it. In reply to questions put by the Court, the witness said he had never seen the filly following the grey mare when Solomon was ' riding her ; nor hadheseenthemaresuckling the foal. There were anumber of mares and foals running together in the mob in which the filly was. Solomon (the plaintiff) was then examined through Mr George Howell, of Eiverton, who acted as interpreter. He deposed that the filly, the subject of the present action, was born in 1864 while he was away mutton-birding. That he went back in May and found the filly running with its mother at South Eiverton. There were other horses there. Some belonging to the defendant. On the 22nd .February went with defendant to get the filly, and saw that the tail had been "pulled." Lawlor's acquaintance, Johnny, was present, and witness said to defendant " that foal is mine." The defendant said "it is not yours, its Johnny's," and afterwards defendant said, " it's not Johnny's, its my horse." Beaven was present, and said the filly belonged to the grey mare. The defendant then said the filly might be put into his yard and roped. JN ext morning went to the yard and saw the filly there, when defendant asked him what he came for. Witness replied that he had come to rope the filly and take her away. Defendant then said " dont you touch that horse, it's mine." Witness said defendant was wrong, and defendant said if witness took the horse, he would send him to gaol. Witness then described the filly to the Bench, and positively asserted it was his property — that he had seen the grey mare suckling it, and the valued it at £20. ' John Wickliffe, a native, swore positively that the filly belonged to the plaintiff. That the grey mare was the mother of it, and had suckled it. That he had often seen the mare and filly together. And that he knew the filly by a white spot on it. William Beaven, a native, gave similar testimony. This closed the plaintiff's case. # Mr. Harvey said that he should not trouble the Court with any remarks, as the utter worthlessnes of the evidence adduced in support. of the plaintiff's case was so apparent that it would be useless for him to comment upon it. To a very great extent the plaintiff's evidence supported the defendant's case, and it was evident, to use a mild term, the plaintiff had made a great mistake. David Shea Lawlor deposed that he had brought the filly, in dispute, into town with him along with its mother. That the filly was foaled on the Eiverton side of Jacob's Eiver, and he (witness) docked its tail when it was about two or three months old. The sire of the filly belonged to Connor and Austin, and the filly was so very like its sire, that no one knowing the progeny of the horse, could doubt its parentage. When Soloman claimed the filly, which had been running about witnesses premises since its birth, there was some chaff going on, as witness did not think Solomon was in earnest, in claiming it. When, however, he found he was serious, witness did all he could to persuade Solomon that he was mistaken. A chesnut filly had Oeen running with the rest, and witness believed it was the property of Solomon, but when they went to look at the horses, witness was surprised to find that Solomon passed by the chesnut filly and claimed his (witness's) filly as his own. Eobert Taylor, surveyor, deposed that he had known the filly in question since it was six weeks old. Was present when defendant docked its tail, and remembered making the remark that he had cut it too short. Had seen the filly about defendant's premises with its mother, a dark brown mare, every day since, while witness lived at Eiverton ; had seen the filly sucking the mare repeatedly, and was positive it was the defendant's property. John Martin knew the filly in question ; saw it when it was three or four days old, sucking defendant's mare, its mother belonging to defendant. The filly and mare were brought outside the Court House and the witness identified the filly by a white spot on it and other marks. Was quite positive the filly belonged to Mr Lawlor. John Hay corrobrated the evidence of the former witness. • j This closed the defendant's case, and the counsel on both sides having agreed not to address the Court, Captain Elles said the Bench were of opinion that the evidence was very conflicting, but the evidence for the defendant was superior to that for the plaintiff, both in respect to numbers and intelligence, and therefore judgment would be given for defendant with costs.