RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Temuka Leader, Issue 2059, 14 June 1890, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Geraldine—Wednesday, June 11

[Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M., and R. H. Postlethwaite, Esq., J.P.] CITIL OASES. Wreathall Bros. v. T. H. WigleyClaim £SB 10s for pigs destroyed by defendant. Mr Hay for plaintiff and Mr Raymond for defendant. ! Defendant filed a set-off for £IOO for damage done to his land by plaintiff's pigs. All witnesses were ordered out of COUrt, ='.::': George Wreathell, sworn, deposed that ha was a member of the firm of Wreathall Bros.; their land adjoined Mr Wigley's. Their usual course in keeping the pigs in question was to herd them about the house and in the gullies daring' the day time and at night to put them in the pigstyes they had for the purpose. On the morning of ■ ; the 24th March the pigs, were turned out about 8 o'clock; aM ■ witness saw them again at 10 o'clock. They missed them about 12 o'clock, and after searching the gullies went in the direction of Mr Wigley's paddock to look for them. There was no boundary fence between their land and Mr Wigley's land, except around 40 acres around the house. The fence was of double sods and three wires. They had to go about half a mile before they reached the run fence. The plan produced was the one of the land and the paddock where the pigs were kept. (Plaintiff then gave a detailed account of the position of the land.) The run fence consisted of standards and six wires, the standards being from 12ft to 18ft apart. The top wire was from 2ft 3in to 2ft 9in from the ground. For a distance of from 150 yards to 200 yards the bottom wire was brokenThe wires were so slack that one could grasp four of the wires in the one hand, Sheep were constantly passing through it in any part. He bad had occasion to drive stock from Mr ( Wigley's. They usually went through the gate, but he had seen Mr Wigley's sheep constantly passing through under the wires. The second wire was 18 inches from the ground, owing to the bottom wire being broken. In one place it was two feet from the ground. That was the run fence. After passing through that fence they came to a right-of-way, leading to the Beautiful Talley road. (Witness here pointed out upon the map the position of the paddock where the I pigs were found, and the position of the fences.) la one spot in the boundary fence they found traces of the - pigs having passed that way, and they , went into the padcock to look, and when they got on top of the spur they saw two horsemen, one inside aad one I outside the paddock. He and his I brother went down to the ccrner and I there saw the carcases of 36 pigs inside the paddock and 3 out. There was one missing. They were in the 500acre paddock, not in any enclosure in the paddock. He identified the pigs as belonging to them. He received a letter from Mr Wiglej saving he had had a number of pigs killed upon his property, aad giving witness notice if they were his to have them removed, as the carcases would become offensive. The fence round the 500-acre paddock was of a different, nature in different places. At the Beautiful Valley corner the first 4£ chains was gorse and wire. 1 hat took them to where tho wire fence commenced. There was a slight elevation where the gorso was planted, about a foot to "18 inches. The fence was a large untrimmed one, aud at this place was about 12ft high. In the 4£ chains menti >ned there was one gap where there were some rails laid across some eighteen inches from the ground. There were no sods and no wires, only the rails put across i he gap under the rails was some 15 or 18 inches high. There were traces of the pigs that had been killed havmg gone through the fence that caused witness to go and look for them. After this 4| chains there was a length of. 10 chains of wire fence, 2£ of which was before they came to the creek, and the rest upon the opposite side, ' his fence was of six plain wires and stakes. The wires were badly strained, and one could grasp three of them in his hand. He made accurate measurements. That was the description of the fence for the « hole 10 chains, with the exception of two chaius of a flood gate. The top wire was from 2ft llm to 3£t 2in from the ground. Hie fence appeared to have been frequently patched. The posts were lott apart and one stake between In one chain fire or six or these posts were broken off and only one sound post in the centre of the whole chain was lett. Anyone could take the top wire and lift the whole from the ground. They could go from 15 yards to 18 yards m Som e places without ? ip l S 5 a J . Bound P°st or stake. For , nait the distance described the bottom wire was from Biu to 17£in from the ground In parts the flood gate was -/ from 6m to 18in from the ground. -Uere was very little water in the creek. If the flood gate had been close to the ground it would offer no obstruction to the pigs going through, i- here was a post in the centre. After leaving these 10 chains they came to 50 or 55 chains of combination fence

of wire and gorse. That started froi two chains above the creek and wer round to the creek again: Theie wa some nine inches to afoot ef sods then and in some places there was no ban at all. In some places there was n gorse at all, and gaps all along th fence. Sheep could pass through it a almost any part, ' The wool wa wrapped round the wire as if the shoe were constantly going through th gaps in the gorse. The place wher the pigs appeared to hare gone throng the bottom wire was seme I7£in fror the ground. It was close to the posl and the distance from the first gors* -plant was about a yard. There wer four gaps besides this that would le the pigs through. Witness went ove the fence about 5 days after the pig were killed and the fence had not beei interfered with then. GK H. Clarl went with him. Went over tin ground on the 29th A pril with Messn J. Kelland, W. DeEenzy, E. B Aymes, W. Copping, and witness’i brother, and the fence was still in tin same state as when the pigs were killed. Witness then detailed the way he arrived at the value of the Pigs,

Witness was cross-examined by Mr Raymond at considerable length. Mr Hay also called E. B. Aymeß, W. Deßenzy, G. H. Clark, W. Copping, and H. Wreathall to prove the condition of the fence and the amount of damage done. The court adjourned for lunch, prior to defendant's case commencing. On resuming, Mr Hay stated that the parties had arranged to settle the matter by defendant agreeing to pay the sum of £3B 10s, with witnesses coßts, £3 ss, solicitor's fee, £2 2s, and court costs, £3 13s.