RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1027, 7 November 1882, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temtjk a—Monday, Nov. 6, 1882

[Before J. Beswick, Esq, R.M.] ILLEGALLY IMPOUNDING.

T. H. Wiglevv. J- W. Jones-Claim £2O damages, for illegally impounding about 78 sheep.

Mr White appeared for the plaintiff, and Austin for defendant.

In this case the defendant is the owner of a section near the run of the plaintiff, and impounded the above number of sheep belonging to the plaintiff on Sunday, the 29th of October, in the Geraldine pound. The grounds for charging damages were that the sheep were taken from plaintiff's land, that the defendant disturbed the lambing flock of the plaiatiffin doing so, that the Pleasant Point Pound was nearer than the Geraldine Pound, and, therefore, it was illegal to put them in the Geraldine Pound, and that the defendant charged £1 driving fee for driving the sheep to the pound. Mr Austin, on behalf of the defendant, admitted that his client had no right to charge £1 impounding fee, and said he was willing to repay it.

The following evidence was taken : Robert Aitkin, a shepherd employed by Mr Wigley, said : The defendant on the day in question was living about three miles from Wigley's station. The defendant's land is not feaced. Myself and James McDonald went over the land in the afternoon of Sunday, the 29th, but could find no sheep there. I did not see any more sheep tracks there than usual. The run was on fire that day. It was not set on lire by myself. Ido not think it would be possible for sheep to be on defendant's land without leaving taacks. To Mr Austin : Defendant's land is unfenced, but there is a thick scrub all round it. The track of the sheep could be seen on part of the land, and on the road. We have, in mustering, found sheep on Jones's land.

James McDonald : I am a bushman living at Kakahu. Jones's section at Kakahu is a bush section. I went with last witness to look for the track of sheep on Jones's section, but found none. It was impossible for the sheep to go on to the section of the defendant except by an old track, and none passed through that track, for there was a water mark through which sheep could not pass without leaving tracks. To Mr Austin : I kao>v Burk street. There was no trace of sheep passing through Burk street. We could have seen the track of sheep in the dust if they had passed there. To the Court : Jones must have driven the sheep out through the gateway. William Burrell, farmer, at Kakahu, said : I saw defendant driving a mob of sheep down Beautiful Valley road opposite my house about 630 a.m. on the 29th. I could not say how far it was from Wigley's station, but it was three miles from Jones's place, and 10 miles from Geialdine.

W. C. Andrews, Psundkeeper at Geraldine, stated that about 78 sheep were impounded on the day in question by J. W. Jones for trespassing on his land in the Kakahu Bush.

To Mr Austin : The sheep were impounded at 10.30 a.m. They did not appear to have been over-driven. T. H. Wigley : I went to the Geraldine Pound on last Sunday week, and released 52 sheep and 25 lambs, and paid £1 8s 2d for them under protest. Jones's section is about 20 acres, and four miles from my ■tation. The G-eraldino Pound is about 12J to 12| miles from Jones's section, and the latter is about 9£ miles from the Pleasant Point Pound. The distances were scaled by Mr Fusscil in my presence. He could not drive to Geraldine without going through my lambing flock of 400 or 500 sheep, and I consider the damage done by scattering these sheep is £SO.

To Mr Austin : Mr Fussell scaled the distances not as the crow flies, but along the road. The road to Pleasant Point is good enough to take his house in pieces along it. There are two rivers On the road to Pleasant Point, but there are also two rivers on the road to Geraldine. There is a place where they have to shoot the timber over. The lambs had to be lifted up in the Geraldine Pound and driven back the same day. I can't positively swaar that the lambs were separated from their mothers. The lambs were worth ss, and the sheep 10s. It is impossible for me to say whether any of the sheep have been lost. I impounded cattie belonging to defendant the week previous and charged £1 driving fee, but I hold a pastoral license and have a right to charge it. W. Burrell, re-called, stated that Jones had a dog driving the sheep to the pound.

Mr Austin submitted that there was no evidence to show that the defendant either broke the law, or did any damage to the slisep.

His Worship said if the £l had not beeu admitted he would have nonsuited the plaintiff. John Willisim Jones, defendant, said ; On Saturday previous to the Suuday on which the slieap were impounded they were on my land. On Sunday I impounded them in Geraldine. The reason I did not take them to Plensant Point Pound was because I could not take young lambs through Ihe Opihi. The distance to Pleasant Point was about 12 or 13 miles t e w y I would have to go,

and tbci-.- whs danger of losing them in the scrub. There <v«s neither scrub nor river between mo and Geraldine. To Mr White : The reason 1 was up so early was because I got up to take them to the pound, as they would walk better in the morning than in the evening. I gave no notice to Mr Wigley. I do not think I could safely take sheep through the Opilii. Sheep might not go down the precipice, but they might get lost in the scrub. James Baily : I know Mr Jones's land. There were about 50 sheep over his land at four o'clock on Saturday evening. I saw their tracks there on the following morning. After Mr White had addressed the Court to the effect that it was out of revenge the sheep had been impounded, His Worship said that it had not been proved that defendant did not take th* sheep off his own land. There was nothing to show that the sheep were not trespassing on his land, and therefore he had a perfect right to impound them. Then, as regards the choice of pounds, it was quite evident that it was eaner to take them to Geraldine than to Pleasant Point, and therefore he complied with the law by taking them to the nearest' convenient poand. Judgment would be given for the plaintiff for £1 driving fee charged by the defendant, but each party would have to bear his own costs.

[Before S. D. Barker and J. Mendelson, Esqrs., J.P.'s.] ABUSIVE LANGUAGE.

George Cross was charged by Eli Mitchell with having used abusive language towards him, calculated to provoke a breach of the peace.

The evidence of the complainant and defendant, as well as the evidence of Mrs Mitchell and Mrs Cioss, was to the effect that Mr and Mrs Mitchell were passing by the house of Mr Gross on the 28th of October last, when Mr Cross called out, ' Oh, I suppose, you are satisfied now, as you have had your revenge.' Mitchell then asked who he was talking to, and Cross replied, 'I am talking to you,' I suppose vou have heard my chaff-cutter has been smashed V Mitchell replied that he heard it in the store, and Cross said that Mitchell was the man who did it. Mitchell said he would make him prove his words, and said that he supposed Cross had heard that his (Mitch all's) filly had been poisoned. According to the evidence of Mrs Mitchell, Mrs Cross said that Mitchell broke the chaff-cutter on Saturday morning, and according to Mr Cross's evidence, Mrs Mitchell said that 'they would be shot like crows if they were in Ireland.' Mr White appeared for the complainant, and Mr Austin for the defendant. Mr White pointed out that the language of the defendant in accusing Mitchell of having broken the machine was very serious, and Mr Austin pointed out that the accusation that Cross had poisoned the filly was not less serious. The Court considered the case a very trivial one, and dismissed it, each party to pay his own costs. Ellen Breakwell was charged on the information of Eliza Colville svith having mace use of abusive language on the 28th inst.

Mr White appeared for the complainant and Mr Hamersley for the defendant. This was another neighbor's quarrel. From the evidence of Eliza Colville, Thomas Creedy, Thomas Lavery, Arthur Colville, Ella, Emma, and Mrs Break well, it appeared that it arose out of a little boy named Bobby Colville throwing stones at Ella Breakwell, which led to Ella Breakwell boxing Bobby Colville's ears. Arthur Colville, Bobby's elder brother then entered the lists, and Emma Breakwell, the elder sister of Ella, also came on the scene and undertook to throw Arthur into the creek. A tussl e ensued between Arthur and Emma as to which of them would put the other in the creek, resulting in Mrs Breakwell making her appearance and challenging Arthur to try his hand on herself t The commotion at last brought out Mrs Colville, who called her children and told them to go home. Mrs Breakwell then rounded on Mrs Colville, and called her mmes but Mrs Colville only went home and took her children with her. The evidence for the defence, however, showed that a daughter of Mrs Colville hit Mis Breakwell a 'smack in the mouth' and spit on her face. The Court fined Mrs Bnkewell the costs of the Court, and ordered each part}' to pay his own cost. TRESPASS. William Binley was charged on the information of J. A. Young with having trespassed on his land while fishing. Mr White, who appeared for the defendant, pointed out that then was no law which made trespass while fishing a crime. Therefore, the case should be thrown out. The only way the case could be brought was in the shape of a civil actiou'for damages for the trespass done on the laud of the complainant by defendant. The case was accordingly thrown out. CIVIL CASES.

J. Brown v W. Stewart—Claim £4 2s Gd.

Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. B. Thomson v Looker—Claim £7 7s 7d. B. Thomson v E, Perry—Claim £7 5s Judgment by defalt in both cases. The Court then rose.