RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Southland Times, Issue 906, 26 February 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

MONDAY, 24th FEBRUARY, 1868. (Before H. M'Culloch, Esq., 8,M.) John Whiteside pleaded guilty to a charge of conducting himself bo as to provoke a breach of the peace, and was fined 30a, or five days imprisonment. Civil Cases, puettelkow t. ross. This was an adjourned case, and by consent was further adjourned until the arrival of the s.s. "Waihopai, PELLING T. GREY. In this case the plaintiff sought to recover the sum of £100, for the wrongful conversion of a bay mare. Mr Harvey, for plaintiff j Mr Macdonald, for defendant. From the evidence of the plaintiff it appeared that in September last the mare in question (branded JW) was running near "Wallacetown, and was then in foal. In December the plaintift spent nine days in searching for the mare, as she was about foaling at that time, but he could not find her. From what Mr M'Lean's groom told him, the plaintiff went to Mr M'Lean's paddock and found his mare there. She had been left there by the defendant. Plaintiff- then went to defendant and inquired about the matter, when defendant told him the mare belonged to his mate, Bissett. Defendant said the brand of Bissett's mare was JW, and C 0, but the C 0 was worn out. Plaintiff, being doubtful, went again and examined the mare, and was satisfied she was his property. Mr M'Lean refused to deliver her to him, as he (plaintifl) had not left her in his charge. Afterwards saw Grey, who said he had made a mistake, and taken away the wrong mare. Since the cemmencement of the action the defendant had offered to give up the mare and pay £10, which the plaintiff refused. He valued the mare at £40, and had been put to considerable expense in searching for her. Several witnesses were examined in support of the plaintiff's case, among them John M l lntosh,Mr M'Lean's groom, who stated that in December last the defendant took the mare to Mr M'Lean's paddock as Bissett's mare; The witness, however, told the defendant it was Mr ; Polling's mare, and explained to him the ! difference between Bissett's mare and the ! one he brought. The C 0 on Bissett's mare was quite distinct. Grey said it was branded lightly, and thought it had worn off. The defendant was examined at the close of plaintiff's case, and stated that he had mistaken the mare for Bissett's ; that Bissett had asked him to look after her, as she was about foaling, but she got on an island and could not be found, and the foal died. Counsel having addressed the Court, judgment was given for plaintiff for £62 '10s, to be reduced to £22 10s if the mare was delivered in three days ; costs, £9 5s HAMMER V. IS" GTERSEK. Claim for £5 2s 6d, on a promisory note. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs, 13s ; to be paid by weekly instalments of

TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY.

CLEEKE V. JOHNSON. This action was brought to recover the sum of £75 for the^ wrongful detention of a bay mare, the property of the plaintiff. Mr Harvey for plaintiff. The defendant appeared in person. Thomas Moriarty Clerke, the plaintiff, deposed that the mare then outside the , Court, branded C, belonged to him, and was a foal of a mare imported by himself. The brand was quite distinct. Had never sold the mare, or authorised anyone to sell her. Missed her four years ago, and made search, but could not find her. Having received some information about her, went to Riverton and there saw defendant, who told witness he had the mare, but declined to give her up until witness proved his title to her. The mare was worth £50 or £60, and the value of her foal, £15. In cross-examination, the plaintiff stated that he knew the mare, both by her description and brand. William Cavanagh told him that Thomas Connell, now in gaol, had sold one of his (witness's) mares, and he (Cavanagh), would shew where'it was, but he did not do so. Thomas Casey, David O'Keeffe, and Alexander Boss identified the mare as the property of the plaintiff. The defendant then gave evidence that he had bought the mare from a Mr Dyer, and had given Mr Dyer another mare and £5 for her. When the plaintiff was over at defendants neighborhood looking for such a mare, he (defendant) went to plaintiff and told him he had a mare answering the description of the one he was enquiring about, and showed him the mare. The plaintiff at once said it was his mare, and asked witness for her, but he wished the plaintiff to sue him, to enable him to recover from the person he bought her from. Defendant did not dispute that the mare was Mr Clerke'a property. The Resident Magistrate said in that case it would have been better not to havo brought the case into court. The defendant however was under the impression that he could not recover unless he had done so, but Mr M'Culloch told him he did not see how the present proceedings would help him in another action. The defendant then proceeded to call several witnesses who had purchased the mare before he got her, and had some knowledge of the circumstances of the case, but nothing bearing upon the right of the plaintiff to the mare, which was undisputed. Judgment for plaintiff for £65, or return of the mare, with costs £14.