MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 February 1918, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS. (Before Mr. A. Crooke, S.M.) CIVIL CASES. Judgment was given by default in the following cases: —Kate B-Rowe (Mr. A. H. Johnstone) v. Mataka, £l3 (costs £2 8s Gd); E. Whittle (Mr. J. H. Quilliatn) v.' John .Sheey, £7 '(costs £J 3s (Id); J. B. McEwan and Co. (Mr. Johnstone) ▼. W. Hunwick, £ls 17s (costs £1 3s od)j Johnston Bros. (Mr. D. Huteheu) T. Percy Malloy, £4 14s 5d (costs 10sJCLAIM FOR CATTLE. A claim was made by Atiria Te Kahakohu (Mrs. Te Whiti) against Ngatai Perereka for £86—the sum of £85 in respect to the alleged wrongful sale, or loss through negligence, of 17 head of cattle, and £1 as balance due from a sum of £2O paid for grazing. Mr. P. B. Fitzherbert appeared for plaintiff and Mr. A. H. Johnstone represented the fendantMr Fitzherbert stated the fact of the case, which briefly were that in August last plaintiff bought a line of cattle and in October she arranged to graze 60 head on Ngatai's land near plaintiff's place. On October 24 plaintiff's husband (Noho Te Whiti) and her daughter went to Ngatai's to see the cattle, They cut out 38 which were taken away for sale. There were five weaners dead, and they left 17, still running on Ngatai's property. Subsequent to that plaintiff's husband went again to see the cattle still remaining, at Ngatai's. The 17 were still there with the exception of one which had got through to Toi Kupe's place adjoining. Ngatai was asked to still keep the cattle as Noho was too busy ploughing to take them away and he agreed to keep them. Ngatai asked Atjria for £19 for grazing. She gave him £2O, as she had no change and Ngatai wau to return the £1 to her. Ngatai had asked Atiria to sell him some of the cattle but she had refused. Later, in consequence of something heard at the Rahotu sale Noho went to Ngatai's and found that all the cattle had been removed- 'Four were subsequently found —one at Mr, Gill's and three at Mr. Greenway's. These were all sold by Ngatai at the Stony River sale, and it was contended that defendant had wrongfully converted them to his own use. •Mr. Johnstone said he admitted the sale of three heifers and was prepared to pay for them when it was shown that they were in the hands of their rightful owners. He denied there was any question of conversion. It was merely a matter, of accounts. Continuing, Mr. Fitzherbert said the question was as to the whereabouts of the remaining 13 cattle, and as defendant had sold the four it was for him to prove what had become of the remainder. Evidence was given by Nohomairangi Te Whiti, Atiria Te Kahakohu, wife of Te Whiti, and by his daughter Rautatu. Mr. Johnstone said he had admitted that his client was liable to account for the three heifers sold at the Stony river, and he was prepared to pay the amount realised, as soon as it was made clear who had possession of the cattle. Regarding the claim in respect to the 14 cattle, he submitted there was no evidence to prove that defendant had fraudulently converted them to his own use, or that there had been a breach of contract through the loss of the cattle by negligence on the part of defendant. He therefore moved for a non-suit with regard to the claim for the loss of those 14 cattle. Mr. Fitzherbert submitted it had been substantially proved that 17 cattle had been left on Ngatai's place, and that Noho had seen them there. It had been shown also that the cattle had disappeared, and three of them admittedly were sold by defendant, and he submitted it lay upon defendant to explain the loss of the other cattle. It was impossible that 14 head of cattle could entirely disappear, no trace of them -being left. Exhaustive search had been made, and the only trace of them was the four found to have been sold by defendant. His Worship said he would reserve judgment on the non-suit point Mr. Johnstone then proceeded to state, the case for defendant. He said the three heifers been sold by defendant with Nohomirangi's consent, and it was now alleged that as the cattle belonged to Atiria, Noho therefore, could not give permission for their sale. Regarding the other cattle, he said it had been shown that Noho had removed cattle from Ngatai's place during his absence in Auckland, but there was nothing to show how many had been removed. It had also been said that defendant's land was a rough bush block, and that the fences were such that cattle frequently strayed on to and also off of his place. It was also shown that no consideration had been given for the extra grazing given by defendant when he had been asked by Noho to let the cattle remain on his section, as he was too busv to take them awav. Mr. Johnstone said there might be many explations of the disappearance of the cattle but plaintiff must show some act of negligence on the part of defendant. It was not sufficient to say that the cattle were there on a certain date and that at a later date they were not there. Evidence in support was given by defendant who was subjected to a lenthy cross-examination by Mr. Fitzherbert. and, at the conclusion, the hearing was adjourned till next court day