TRESPASSING ON CROWN LANDS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXII, Issue 98, 15 May 1900, Page 2

TRESPASSING ON CROWN LANDS.

A cask in which the Commissioner of Grown Lands claimed £ls from A. Gibbs and G. Firbanks for alleged trespass and damage by grazing on unoccupied Grown lands at Okau, was heard before Mi', R. L. Stanford at the Magistrate's Oourt on Monday. Mr. Kerr prosecuted, and Mr. Weston appeared for the defendants, who pleaded not guilty. Mr. Kerr, in opening the caße, said the information might have been laid under section 33 of the Land Act, whereby the defendants, on conviction, would be liable to a penalty of £SO, but he thought it a better course to take civil proceedings. These had been taken against the defendants jointly, because it appeared that they were wrong-doers together. Gibbs, one of the defendants, was a settler of Tongaporutu, and Firbanks held sections in the Okau Settlement. The sections in question are adjoin unoccupied Crown lands, and over these the cattle in the possession of Firbanks were alleged to have trespassed, There was no boundary fence between the properties and the 300 acres of Crown land adjoining, over which the animals might stray, Gibbs had given Firbanks 50 head of cattle to' graze for him, for which he paid 4d per head, and these cattle had beenj under Firbanks' superintendence for 12 weeks. Gibbs had been notified by the ranger that the catt'e were trespassing, to which he replied that Firbanks was responsible for the cattle when under his charge. Firbanks had also been made aware of these cattle' trespassing, but had not removed them, The matter had then come before the Land Board, and Firbanks and Gibbs had been written to and pressed for grazing. In consequence of this claim Gibbs appeared before the Land Board and stated that he had paid Firbanks j .£lO for grazing his cattle, and that the latter was responsible for any damage the animals had done and for their straying. Gibbs would admit that he knew that there was a likelihood of the cattle straying, and had made arrangements that if the Land Board made any fuss the amount of £lO for grazing was to be paid over to them. H. Bannister, clerk in the Land Board Office, stated that in the minutes of the last Board meeting a resolution was passed authorising .these proceedings to be taken. He had been present when Gibbs appeared before the Land Board, and heard him asked " if, when he delivered the stock to Fairbanks, he did not ascertain whether Fairbanks' section was fenced, and if there was any likelihood of the cattle straying ?" Gibbs said that he had asked no questions: it was not his business; he merely asked Fairbanks if he could take the beasts, and on being told that he could took them to the section. J, Barron, Crown Lands Kanger for the Taranaki district, stated that he had warned defendant that the animals in question were trespassing. Witness advised defendants to get a permit from the Land Board to graze the cattle, O. K. Stock, a member of the Land Board, gave evidence agreeing with former witnesses. G. P. Doile, Receiver of Land Revenue, deposed that he received £lO from Gibbs on the 29th December, with no reference as to what the money was for. He retained £7 due for arrears of rent, and returned the balance, G. Firbanks, one of the other di fondants, deposed that the cattle straying on the Crown land was not an act of wilful negligence, but that it was impossible to keep the animals off. He drove them back whenever he saw them trespassing, but could not keep guard day and night. Mr. Weston pointed out that the Land Board had rather benefited than Uherwiee by the cattle straying, as >h,rank grass and undergrowth had bjeu 'Mteudnwn aud the section improved for prospective purchasers. Thu act (J trespass had not been a wnnton one and ibo damage done was jii hui-umUv nil. Mr. Kotr said that the defendants had been depriving the Land 1:1c:;rd o! gr. zing for which tli.y might }i»v« rot id or 6J. a head, ai-d tbonforo they i>lfc justified .n pushing theii- e's.im". If i,lie defendants hud applied ii, t! ;i .' H'.-irdforapemiiMo g U . z . Cilt ,,j e ;il | ivntik! hiivc been we!!, hut th, v ,]jj ll()r ' Newton King imd \V. Bi.'ai-il .i>. Vl .

ov::knee ;.s Ui '.ho v.thie i.f the pv/.-dj.. | Hit; Worship said tlur, l. 1; ,|£| i>.tt tiiir-k 'jibis v.:is ii.voivt<l i n cny co-.{.|v.-.T.'y to (W:a\ul ;|,- ; [ A .,\ ■ «-'', '"i.-, --hat I'ft-er hi-yrm (!«.•- liv.-.-cs! tl's rattle over to Fi.bsuk^

' ■■■■ hoin he evidently considered a com* petent person, he coniidered himself relieved of all further responsibility. The charge against him would therefore be dismissed. With Firbanks, however, the case was different. Although there was no actual wilful damage er trespass done, the cattle had certainly grazed on the adjoining property without any right, by which the Land Board had been deprived of revenue. Still, the animals had only been there part of the time, and had they been there the full 12 weeks at 4d per head that would only have amounted to £lO. Therefore he did not feel he could give judgment for the full amount claimed. He thought £7 10s would compensate the Board for grazing the animals and allowing for any damage there might have been dene, and he would therefore give judgment accordingly,