MOTUEKA POLICE COURT

Colonist, Volume IV, Issue 320, 13 November 1860, Page 2

MOTUEKA POLICE COURT

[from a correspondent.] FBefore G. Thorpe, Esq, Chairman, CM. Gascoigxe, JH. Vxvyan, .W; B. Weight, J. G. Greenwood, Junior, E?qs.] . Saturday, November 3,1860. W. Guy, farmer, Motueka,appearedonsummons to answer the complaint of Mis, Eliza Clarke ot the Aloutere, for havins; killed a bullock hey property.

Mrs. E. Clarke being sworn deposed,—That about three weeks} since, Mr. Guy killed a bullock, her property, without her knowledge, consent, or sanction. The bullock was running at the back of her property. Mr. Guy being asked whether he pleaded Guilty of not Guilty, replied Guilty ; but explained that although he'knew the bullock to be the property of the late Mr. Francis Clarke, yet that he had been assured by Mr. Henry Clarke that he was authorised to sell, and on the faith of that assurance had purchased the bullock. Mr. Guy was asked by the bench to be sworn to his statement, but declined; he, however, signed it. Mr. H. Clarke being sworn, deposed after some examination by the bench : I sold the bullock in question to Mr. Guy. Mi*. H. Clarke in the first instance stated to the bench on oath that he did not sell the bullock, that it was sold by Mrs. Henry Clarke his wife in his absence; but that life had authorised Mr. Guy to kill a certain quantity of catile. Judgment for the plaintiff; but sis judgment carries coats, and as costs would imply a criminal intention, the bench remitted the costs, hut found that Mr. H. Clarke possessed no claim to the bullock, which was clearly Mrs. E. Clarke's property. Mrs. Clarke then applied for a warrant for Mr. H. Clarke for stealing her bullock, and also for taking away some other of her property ; but was told by the Chairman that the bench did not grant warrants till the effect of a summons had bean tried, and advised her to settle the case out of Court; and although the plaintiff evinced a determination to push the matter, yet finding the bench inexorable, consented at their/suggestion to compound the affair by receiving the amount the beast was said to have been sold to the defendant for. Boyce v. Brougham. —Was postponed for want of a material witness.. Rudd v. Drummond.—W&s dismissed—complainant not appearing.