DISTRICT COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2223, 4 July 1891, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Timaru—Thursday, July 2nd.

(Before His Honor Judge Ward.)

cmx CASE. John Campbell v. Thomas Perceval Wooding—Claim £54, value of 83 sheep detained by defendant. Mr Hay for plaintiff, Mr C. Perry with Mr Raymond for defendant. The case was continued on last Thursday, the evidence of T. P. Wooding, jun., Alice Rose Wooding, Michael O'Halloran, Robert Kennington, Peter Cameron, and Frank Standish being taken. After hearing the evidence and counsel's ' addresses Hiss Honor summed up. The issue was whether these sheep were or were not Wooding's, and the jury had better divest themselves of all recollection that Campbell had been charged with stealing the sheep. That question had been decided by the Supreme Court. He would put the case simply to them. Wooding was in possession of 263 hoggets on the Bth October, and when he begins shearing 90 of these hoggets are gone. One of them has a peculiar mark that can be sworn to by anyone, a black sheep with a white patch on its side. Among the sheep of his neighbor Campbell are a large number, say 83 hoggets, with a peguliar mark, and resembling in every possible respect, according to the evidence of the experts, the remaining hoggets left on Wooding's farm. They had a long list of experts, well known in South Canterbury, and they all swore that those hoggets from Campbell's farm were of the same kind or breed of sheep exactly. Some went so far as to say it would be very difficult to pick out a precisely similar line, and as they all bore defendant's earmark, and had some peculiarly marked sheep among them, prima facie they were Wooding's sheep. And then it rested with Campbell to show how he became possessed of them. He swore positively that he purchased the sheep at Ashburton, as large-framed lambs, which developed into these particular hoggets. Then they had the evidence of Bain, who drove the lambs down, that they were large-framed lambs, but in poor condition; they travelled well and he did not lose one. Then Archibald Campbell, the father of plaintiff, received the lambs from Bain and fed them, and swore they developed into these particular sheep. The lad Macpherson swore he had these sheep in his charge for a time. Macdonald saw the lambs, and gave a similar account of them to Bain's. Then there was McLeod, but he had not much to say about them. Jones, clerk to Mr Thomas, who helped to draft these lambs, said they might, if well fed, have grown into the sheep described. Johnson, the drover, saw the lambs, and he coincided with Campbell's and Bain's view. On the other hand Wooding swore positively that the sheep were his, that they had been raised on his farm, and he knew them well. He swore positively that they belonged to him. Then came a long list of experts, who swore that they were the same line of sheep,' aad some of them said it would be difficult to match them anywhere. There was Rice, who found a rig, Joseph, Thomas, and Miss Wooding, who all concurred that the sheep were theirs; all swore positively to the marked sheep, and were as positive as anyone could be that the sheep were Wooding's and not Campbell's. When O'Halloran, who said there was a big dash of Shrop: shire in the 66 picked out at Newlands, and that they were smaller sheep than the rest, and on the whole better kept and that it would be difficult to get another 66 like them. He saw the 25 brought to compare with them and said they were the same line, , while differences in the condition of the sheep and the wool observed could be accounted for. Then they had the evidence of Kenington, Cameron, and Standish. Stannish swore that lie culled the' sheep very carefully and sold them, to Kenington (Campbell admitted he bought them from Kenington), and that there was no such earmark as a notch among them, so that there was none with' Wooding's earmark among those culls. He was per-

fectly positive that these culls could not have developed into such sheep as those now in dispute. Cameron gave very much the same description of the culls as Standish, —that they could not have turned out to be as good as Wooding's. Both Standish and Cameron swore that none of the culls had an earmark like Wooding's, and that most of them had none. Kenington, who bought the culls from Standish, said that he drafted them into three lots, and all three lots had been accounted for. Kennington saw the three lots of hoggets at the Geraldine Court, and he now swore they were the same line, and he did not think the culls could have developed in such sheep. There was the evidence, and the jury simply had to decide according to the weight of evidence, to whom the sheep belonged. If they believed that they belonged to Wooding they would find a verdict for defendant, without referring to any consequences that might ensue hereafter; if they believed they were Campbell's, they would find for the plaintiff. His Honor having concluded, Mr Perry asked him to draw the jury's attention to the earmarks, and His Honour added to the jury, that there was no question that the sheep found on Campbell's land bore an earmark made by that punch, as far as could be judged. The jury retired at 3.35 p.m. and returned in about half an hour with a verdict for the defendant. Judgment was entered up accordingly, and as agreed, for plaintiff, Wooding, in the cross action for the value of wool taken from the sheep by Campbell.

PROBATES. . Probate was granted to the wills of Allan McMaster, Lucy Annie Moorhouse, and Andrew Reid, and letters of administration were granted to the widow of R. O'Brien, and the sitting closed.