PIG TRESPASS

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 210, 14 December 1910, Page 7

PIG TRESPASS

FENCED AND UNFENCED LAND. Mr. Fifczherbert, 5.M.,, heard a case of special interest to pig farmers and property owners at the 'Magistrate's Court yesterday morning. It was a claim for damages, under .section 14 of the Im- ] pounding Act, 1!)08, on account of the trespass on a field of turnips belonging to William Grant, of Puniho, of a number of pigs, the property of Rangi Hemata, a Maori settler, and. respected resident of the same district. During the hearing of the case, an interesting point was disclosed as to the relativ.e damages payable in respect of stock on fenced and unfenced Wnds. The plaintiff claimed the sum of £8 ss, being the trespass rates due by the defendant to the plaintiff in respect of the trespass of 13 pigs, the property of the defendant on the plaintiff's land, being sections 24 and 25, block 5, Cape S.D., on the 31st day of August and 3rd day of September, 1910. In opening, Mr. A. H. Johnstone, who appeared for plaintiff, stated that defendant admitted ten pigs had trespassed on the turnips on the second occasion mentioned in the statement of claim, viz., 3rd September, and had paid £2 10s, and 24s for costs to counsel in re- j spe'et thereto. Mr. Johnstone called the following evidence in regard to the trespass on 31st August. William Grant, the plaintiff, said he leased 10 acres from Mr. Stevenson and had a crop of turnips on them. When he visited the ground on the 3rd September he found L 9 pigs there, and on his taking them to the pound some boys rescued the pigs and swore and cursed at him all they knew. The fence around the turnips was a good cattle one. William John Stevenson, farmer, Puniho, said he owned 400 acres, of which 16 were leased to Mr. Grant. Ke knew the defendant, Eangi Hemata, who lived opposite his place. One day in August last he saw 15 pigs in the 16-aere patch of turnips and noticed particularly two small pigs amongst the lot, which belonged to defendant. He had seen the pigs on the ground on several occasion's;, and spoke to defendant about the matter. He knew they were defendant's pigs because when he put the dogs on to them - they went straight home to defendant's place. To Mr. Hughes: There was one Tamworth sow, and the rest were Berkshires. All through August the pigts were on the turnips, but he could not swear the pigs were on the turnips on any particular day. Ke knew of no other near neighbor who kept pigs; those who did were some distance away. Defendant kept them in a paddock, but the gate was always" open, and they were continually on the public road. This had been going on for .about two years. Several natives kept pigs. Re-examined: He. had taken the pigs to defendaiss. place five or six times, and had no doubt the pigs on the turnips during August were defendants. To His Worship: It was about the middle of the month that he rememhered seeing the pigs on'the turnips. Told Grant the next day that the pigs had been trespassing.. Plaintiff (re-called) said Stevenson had told him during August about the trespass. The pigs were not on the turnips on either, of the days he spoke to defendant about the trespassing, and he had not seen them on the turnips with the exception of the--3rd September when the pigs were • rescued from him. Mr. Hughes asked for a non-suit. The claim was a simple allegation and not set out in any particular form, all the pigs being claimed for at 5s per head. The schedule of the Act referred to trespass on any "fenced' land, and.plaintiff admitted it was not fenced land. > Mr. Johnstone quoted section 14 of the Act, which, he contended, was a special one in respect to the trespass of pigs and goats. The common law right ot damage was taken away, and besides droving fees (which was the only claim that could be made of cattle for trespass on unfenced land), provision was made for trespass rates for either pigs or goats. His Worship disagreed with counsel on this reading of the Act, and pointed out that the schedule of the Act.clearly defined the damages in respect of trespass on fenced land and unfenced land, the former being fixed at 5s per head and the latter at Is per head for pigs and, goats, with double fee for subsequent' trespass. With cattle there was no claim for trespass on unfenced 'lands. After further argument, His Worship advised the parties to leave the case as it was. Plaintiff had already been paid: too much according to the : schedule rates, while he (Mr. Fitzherbert) could not allow more than 13s even if the case went to the plaintiff, so that defendant was that amount to the good. In fact, 1 bath parties were better off in leaving the case at that stage. It was defendant's own fault for paying too much, and the position would amount to taking the money out of plaintiff's pocket to be paid back' again if he decided the question of .damages according to the schedule rates. • It was agreed to accept His Worship's decision.