RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1668, 3 December 1887, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Geraldine—Thursday, Dec, 1, 15^ [Before W. M. Moore and H.j "W, Moore, Esqs., J.P.’s.] ! ASSAULT. At the request of his wife H. H, Parker was bound over to keep the peace to her for six months, himself in £SO, and two sureties of £25 each. Defendant said he was unable to find the sureties, nor should he try. Ho was ordered to find the sureties or go to gaol for six months. CIVIL CASES. 0.35. Sherratt v. William Johnston —Claim £7, for the hire of a horse and trap.—Judgment by default. Same v. L. Millard—Claim £3, money lent.—Judgment by default. SHOOTING PIGS, Maria Fitzgerald r. V. Grahame— Claim £B, value of two pigs shot by defendant, burying the same, and trespass. Mr White appeared for plaintiff. Plaintiff, sworn, said she owned some property near defendant’s, and about the 29th of September found that one of her pigs had been shot in her own paddock. Saw the defendant, who first denied shooting the pig, and afterwards said he shot at it to frighten it. The value of the pig was about 25s or 30s. The cost of burial about ss. Lost another pig in a couple of months. On the 19th November the pigs were passing defendant’s gate, when he opened the gate, came out, and deliberately shot one while in the middle of the road. Her husband, who was some distance behind putting his horses in the paddock, saw the shot fired. The value of the pig was about the same as the other. The pig was shot in the left shoulder and heart, the same as tb«. first. On 16th of November the report of a gun on her laud. 1 Went over to defendant’s house and asked him who told him to shoot on her land, and cautioned him not to trespass or shoot there. Shortly afterwards defendant went upon her land and defied her. She had seen him on her land four times after speaking to him. William Fitzgerald, husband of plaintiff, sworn, said he knew nothing about the first pig, as he was away at the time. On the 19th November was putting the horses in the reserve when defendant shot the pig. Was making his way . home when his wife asked him to come and see what defendant had shot it for. The pig was about half way across tne road when it was shot. It was worth about 255. Told defendant not to trespass on his laud any more. When the pig was shot Mr Griffiths asked him if he could N see any blood in the garden. He said No, nor would Mr Griffiths be able to see any, as there was none there. Told Mr Griffiths to look and be sure, as he would in all probability be summoned as a witness, "He had seen defendant upon his land three times since he had warned him to keep off. Daniel McNab said he saw the first pig when dead. It was then at plaintiff’s house. The value of it wouldi be about 255. Did not see the second Pig-

Margaret Fitzgerald, a daughter of defendant’s, about 12 years of age, was examined as to her knowing the meaning of an oath. It having been shown that she did she was sworn, and deposed to hearing her mother tell defendant not to trespass upoA the land, and to seeing him upon, thjr land about five times after that. V. Grahame, defendant, sworn, said that he wished simply to make a statement. For the past six or seven months, the pigs had Deen trespassing both upon the school premises and his ground. Certainly the garden was not in cultivation, but that was because it had been destroyed. He had repeatedly warned plaintiff to keep the pigs off or he would shoot them. He warned her not only in his own interests but also in those of the Committee, as he had full charge of the school and grounds while he was there. The first time ho gave any notice, about the pigs was to Mr Griffiths some time ago. Mr Griffiths wrote to plaintiff warning her to keep the pigs from trespassing. Defendant, had received a letter from plaintiff about eight months ago, in which she had practically refused to keep the pigs away, and had told defendant he was only placed there to teach, and therefore had nothing to do with the pigs trespassing. The note concluded by hinting that defendant 'was betlo* qualified to herd the pigs than teach. Defendant contended that this note showed the spirit ia which the warning: had been received, and he thought its proved clearly that she did not intend to act upon the warning. The pigs came down and broke down the fence and did .other damage: so much so that he had to employ a man to mend up the fences again. With regard to the first pig he sent a letter to plaintiff warning her that if he found them ioT the grounds again he should certainly shoot them. Not long afterwards! they came in again, and be shot ah one to frighten it. It walked along , about one hundred yards after getting j through the fence, and then he lost 1 ! sight of it in a hollow in the ground. He did flot send notice that he had shot the pig, as he was not aware ho had done so. Had he known the pig was shot he would have : sent notice to plaintiff. With regard to the seond pig. They came down on the gr* -utnl * he throve the® away, but th.*/

came back. He attempted to drive theni away the second time by “ shoo* ing” them, but they would not go. He then took the gun and fired at one from the verandah. It went along towards plaintiffs house, and then laid down and died. He ridiculed the idea of small shot being able to drop a pig dead at a distance of say fifteen yards. As regards the trespass. The fact was the school reserve had been leased to Mr Fitzgerald with the consequence that the children coming to school had to trespass a small way upon this land. Mr Griffiths’ children were allowed by special permission to cross this land. As to his trespassing on the 16th, 17th, and 18th, that could only, be in the morning when he was in the habit of going to get the papers, when they were thrown out by the railway guard. On the Monday morning he went down, and the footbridge having been washed away by the recent rain, he thought they would have no objection to bis crossing the land. He had never trespassed upon their land with a gun. He once shot a hare on the road that ran into their paddock, and he had laid down the gun and followed it, but had never taken the gun with him.

To Mr White: The School Committee and Mr Fitzgerald paid half the expenses each of the repairs to the fence. There was a crop of onions in the garden the year before, and he had allowed them to go to seed, as he wanted the seed. The pigs were destroying the seed, He could only get his papers at the time mentioned by crossing the paddock in question, as the bridges were washed away, and to go round would have made him late lor ichoel. Mr White, addressing the Bench, ■aid that defendant seemed to think he ’had a right to shoot these pigs because they were trespassing. He quoted the 14th clause of the Impounding Act 1884 to show that he should have claimed damages for the trespass before resorting to such means. He contended it was evident that defendant was actuated by considerable feeling in the matter. Defendant said he did not think so. He had continued to give notice of the pigs for some six or seven months before he took the steps he did. The Bench decided to give a verdict for plaintiff, but not for the full amount claimed. Judgment would be for—£l 5s value of the pig, 2s 6d for the burying, and £1 for the trespass. Solicitor’s foe £1 Is. No witnesses’ expenses were allowed. This being all business the Court adjourned.