IMPOUNDING CATTLE.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 441, 29 January 1890, Page 6

IMPOUNDING CATTLE.

Auckland, Jan. 22. A case of some importance was heard at the Onehunga R.M. Court yesterday, before Mr J. S. Clendon, R.M., and Dr. Erson, J. P ,when George Ernest Wyatt,of Mangere, was charged that he did,on the 9th January, rescue from the ranger at Mangere, Joseph Hastie, 9 cows, 2 calves, and 2 horses, while the ranger was in the discharge of his duties. Mr Mahony appeared for the defendant, and pleaded not guilty. Mr S. Hesketh, who appeared for the informant, stated that the object of the action was to test whether the Mangere Road Board could charge for grazing cattle, and also to determine whether Mr Wyatt did not illegally rescue the cattle from the ranger when in the discharge of his duty. Evidence was given by Wm. Edwards, clerk to the Mangere Road Board, as to the issue of licenses.

John Hastie, junr., ranger for the Board, deposed that on the 9th of January last he seized several head of cattle on the Crown lands at Mangere. He was driving the cattle to the pound when he was rushed by defendant and others. A scuffle ensued, and witness was unable to take the cattle to the pound. He was sure none of the cattle had the Board’s ticket attached. Messrs Kensington, W. F. Massey, Jno. Laing, junr., and Robert Rae also gave evidence for the plaintiff. For the defence, Mr Mahony contended that the “Gazette” notice of 1865 did not go far enough, as it did not clearly state that the land was confiscated. He held that the land to be confiscated must be taken from a tribe of natives, which it was not, and to prove that a person acted illegally in rescuing cattle it would be necessary to show that the land was clearly owned by the Crown. Mr Mahony asked His Worship to rule as to whether there had been any evidence as to the cattle depasturing, as it appeared to him there was none, and if that was so, the case must fall.

His Worship said that the objection was a near approach to a quibble, and he would take some evidence foi the defence. Woods Wyatt, son of defendant, deposed that while he was driving the cattle Mr Hastie came up and said he would bake the cows bo the pound. Witness told him to go and see his father before taking them. He denied having told Mr Hastie he was taking the cows to water. The defendant, George Ernest Wyatt, deposed that the 9th January he sent his son (last witness) with cattle to the springs. He watched the boy driving the cattle a distance off, and the boy had not stopped to let the cattle feed from the time he left bill he arrived back, along with Hastie. When talking to Hastie after the scene, he admitted that his instructions from the Chairman of the Board were to pound Wyatt’s cattle, either with or without tickets. Samuel Gooseman, Peter Watt and James Robertson also gave evidence, and His Worship deferred judgment till he heard a charge of assault preferred against Wyatt by J. Hastie, junr., that the defendant had got hold of the complainant round the neck, diagged him some distance, struck him on the face, and blackened his eye. The explanation made by the defendant was that Mr Hastie came into his (defendant’s) place and refused to go out, whereupon he was pushed out. His Worship, in giving his decision, stated that the production of the plans and “ Gazette, ’ was sufficient to prove that the land wa- Crown land. The confiscation had been made and gazetted, but whether correctly or otherwise he was not to say. That question should be settled in the higher Court. A further objection raised by Mr Mahony was that the cattle were nob grazing. The evidence showed that the cattle were taken for the purpose of impounding, while they were being driren to water, and the owner rescued them from the ranger. The Act provided that it was unlawful for any person to seize cattle when they were being taken bothepound, and the defendant, as a learned man, should have known that if his cattle were impounded and he suffered loss, he had his remedy at law. Hie Worship also complimented Mr Mahony on his able defence.* He recorded a small fine against defendant in this case —viz., 10s and costs amounting to £6 4s 6d, and in the case of assault, which arose out of the cattle case, be did not consider it of any moment, and he therefore dismissed it.