RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1180, 20 May 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT.

Geraldine—Saturday, May, 17, 1884. Before Rev. 6, Barclay, and Captain Temple, J.P.’s] alleged assault. Kate Johnson charged William L. Duncan, of Kakahu, with assaulting her at Kakahu on Blh May last, A cross action of assault brought by William L. Duncan against Kate Johnson, alleged to have taken place on the same date, was also heard, the two cases being taken together. William L. Duncan deposed : On Bth May last 1 was going towards my own house when defendant met me. Some of her cattle were near my house, and when I spoke to her and told her to take Hiem away she abused me. I took no notice of this but went on. Finding that about an hour after she had not taken the cattle away, I went to her house, when she threw a bucket of dirty water over me. She also struck me with a stick, and afterwards threw an empty bucket at me. I told her if she did not desist I would strike her. As she did not I hit her in the face^ Kate Johnson deposed : On the evening of the 7th May last, I owned a cow and calf. My husband was away working. The cattle weie on Mr Wigley’s land, from whom we had permission to let them grazoonit. They were not on Duncan’s land. Next morning I saw them on Duncan’s land, but they could not have got there unless they were driven. On my going after the cattle, Duncan came up to me, nearly pushing me over. It was raining at the time, and after I we at home to change my wet c’othes Duncan came kicking at the door. 1 told him to go away home and not come and worry me. He then abused me, using bad language. I told him if he did not go away I should throw’ a bucket of water over him, which I afterwards did.

Mrs Tagg ; I have on several occasions been in Mrs Johnson’s company when Duncan has threatened to strike her, and used threatening language. He also said

he’d go for me after he had settled her. The Bench considered both cases fully proved, and fined the several defendants £l, each to find one surety of £2O to keep the peace for six months. TAKING EVIDENCE. • Joseph Satterthwaite v. Norris O’Connor. In this case, now pending in the Besident Magistrate’s Court, at Hokitika, the plaintiff gave the following evidence to bo transmitted to the latter Court : On the 7th September, 1883,1 disposed of twenty-six acres of land, with buildings thereon, to Daniel (Julian. During my occupancy, and since the sale of the land, I have received information; in writing, that O’Connor had been cutting a great quantity of timber on it. I wish this evidence to be forwarded to the Court at Hokitika. The Court then rose. TEMUKA. Monday, May 19, 1884. [Before S. D, Barker and D. Inwood Esqs., J.Ps.] crm cases. Eli Mitchell v. G. Cross—Claim £4 2s. The amount was alleged to bo dne for illegally impounding cattle on the 14th of February last. Eli Mitchell: On the 14th of February my boy had the cattle in charge. He was Inking them off the island in the river, Tiie land belongs to Lewis, but Cross took the cattle to the pound'. There was no running stream between my land and his. Some of the cattle were on my land and some on his. He took them down by the Opihi bridge, a long way round, when he could have come straight. In reply to defendant witness admitted he knew nothing about the matter beyond what the boy told him. Christopher Osborne, stepson of the plaintiff, stated that he had the cattle partly driven off the Island when Cross took them from him. , In reply to Cross he admitted having met him between Ackroyd’s and Ollivier’s on the road on that day and having turned back. George Cross, the defendant, said he was going to Pleasant Point on the morning in question, and met the last witness between Ackroyd’s and Ollivier’j, on the road. The last witness was coming in the direction ef Temuka, but after passing witness he turned back and went up another road. Witness knew something was up at once, and pushed on and reached the island with his brother aa soon as the last witness. Not one of the cattle were off the island when he reached there. William Cross, brother of George Cross, corroborated this statement. Mrs Mitchell gave evidence to the effect that she saw with a field glass her son driving the cattle off. He had drivan most of them off, when Cross came and took them to the pound. The Bench decided that Cross had a perfect right to impound the cattle, and gave judgment for defendant with costs, and allowed 8s each to the defendant and his brother for the loss of iheir day’s work. Eli Mitchell v. G. Nicholson—Claim £2 7s4d. This was a similar case. Eli Mitchell stated that he sent his boy with some cattle to the Government land, and that defendant, on the 13th of February last, drove the cattle into his own paddock and then impeunded them. Alike knew about it was that hia boy said so. Christopher Osborne, Henry Hogan, and Henry Bagliurst all told the same s'ory, each beginning ‘On the 13th of February.’ They said they were bathing, when the defendant came up and took the cattle off the Government land and put them into his paddock, then into his stockyard, and .then took them to pound. Charles Nicholson said that -all the cattle he took were on his own land. There were a good many more cattle there, but as they were not on his land he did not interfere with them. In reply to plaintiff he said be believed the Temuka pound was seven miles away and that the Pleasant Point was only three miles distant. On . the ground that the law required the cattle to be impounded in the nearest pound, judgment was given for ilia plaintiff for £1 7s 4d, each party to pay Lis own costs.