LAW AND POLICE.

Southland Times, Issue 979, 3 July 1868, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

There were only two civil cases at the Kesident Magistrate's Court on Thursday, 25th June. The first heard was that of Ware v. Lawrence- Mr Harvey stated the case for the plaintiff. He said this was an action brought to recover the sum of LlB, the value of a cow, the property of the plaintiff, the carcase of which had been appropriated by the respondent to his own use. Both parties lived near town, and ran cattle on the common of the Invereargul Hundreds. Some time ago thiß cow was missed. On the 9th June the plaintiff, from information received, went to the' defendant's house and asked, him if he had eeen the missing cow, and he said hehadseenadead cow on the plain and had brought it home and used it for pig feed. He showed the head and skin, which the plaintiff identified as that of his cow. Several witnesses were called to prove that the cow was seen dead before it was removed by the defendant. The defence was that defendant found the cow dead, and made the fact known to several ; in fact, that he proclaimed it. No owner having turned up, he had taken it home believing he was doing right instead of wrong. No concealment hadbeenattempted. MrHarvey,inreply,S»id that infringing this action bis client was actuated by a sense of duty as much as anything else. He was a Warden of the Invercargill Hundreds, and on public grounds desired that it should be known that no one had a right to remove an animal, although it might be dead, that was not his own. He should on this ground presß for a verdict of some kind, as aa example to others. He said the defendant appeared to think that he was charged with stealing the cow : there was no such charge. If an animal was found dead it was a duty that every settler owed to his neighbor to give information to the nearest Warden. The I regulations for the management of the Hundreds were defective, and he Bhould seek to get them revised. The Bench gave a verdict for plaintiff for L 2, and costs. The case of Rough v. Miller was to recover theaum of Ll2 14s, for board and lodging* There was no appearance of defendant —verdict for plaintiff, Ll2 14s. At the Eesident at Magistrate's Court on Wednesday, the 24th June, a man of the name of Macdonald was charged with stealing a cheque for £20 drawn by Mr C. Basstian in favor of one James Martin. The evidence adduced went to show that the drawer of the cheque had requested Mr Flint, who he met up country to inform the police that the payment of it had been stopped. It waß also proved that the prisoner had attempted to cash it under the name of James Martin. A remand was asked for by the Commissioner of, Police for the purpose of obtaining further evidence. On the opening of the Court on Thursday Mr Weldon applied for the prisoner's discharge, *statingthat there was no case. He had learnt that the cheque was the property of the prisonerIt appeared Macdonald had been for some time in*the employ of Mr Basstian, and wanted to leave, but his employer refused to allow him to do so without proper notice. In order, however, to i get his money at once he asked for a cheque for £20, stating that he owed that amount to a man named James Martin. The cheque wa« drawn out in favor of Martin or order. The prisoner left the station and came to town, and in order to get the cheque cashed intended to endorse it as James Martin, The Magistrate discharged the prisoner, telling him that he had brought upon himself the inconvenience he had experienced in having been arrested upon thiß charge.