RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XV, Issue 4745, 22 March 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

(Before H. Kenrick, Esq., R.M.)

The Hikutaia Timber Dispute. H. THOMSON V. BIBCH AND OTHEBS. After we went to press yesterday the following evideßce was taken :-— Henry Thomson had charge of the whare, which had been cut down at; Hikutaia, for Mr Fagan from the middle of December. There were four or fire of Pagan's men and six of Gibbs' men living in it. Had by Pagan's orders boarded some of the Union men, and cooked for them, accounting for them to his employer. Had never given up possession to anyone. The party boarded with witness for some time, but left as soon as their work was done. Three Union men went to the hut on the 15th February, and others arrived later. Witness boarded them and kept an account against them as usual. They did not say they came to take possession. [After giving corroborative evidence of destruction of the hut, the witness continued.] Saw. the pistol or revolver in Fletcher's hand when he threatened Andrew Gibb after the shot had been fired. Held the whare on Fagan's behalf, and had no personal interest in it. Boss, Fagan, and Birch were there on February 15th, but nothing was said ; about ■ his being in possession by consent or instructions of the Sash and Door Company, nor about Birch being in sole possession or control. None of the Union men sought witness' permission, but Fagan had told himthey were to board there. The provisions consumed by the i defendants were Fagan's. Wm. Fagan, bush contractor, deposed that the whare in question was built for him in October last at a cost of £50 or £60. When a dispute aroße as to boundaries he placed Thompson in charge, and seeing that litigation was pending, he transferred it about February 22 to Wm. Gibb, who was about commencing a sub-contract. Thompson, how* ever, remained, cooking for witness, who had still to furnish provisions to Gibb's men, and thus retained control of the whare. Had never surrendered possession except to Gibb, and then only yielded its temporary use, until the dispute was settled, and because he had no desire to be implicated in it. Had contracts from both Blair and the Company. Did not arrange with Boss to give up the whare to the Company. Met Boss and agreed to go with him to the whare, but only for company's sake-—certainly not to give him possession of the whare. When there Boss said he intended stopping the men from taking the timber, but did not say anything about the control of the whare.

Robert Blair deposed that Fagan was a contractor cutting trees purchased by him, and Gibb was a sub-contractor.

This concluded the evidence for the prose* cation,. Mr Button addressed the Court at some length upon the evidence he intended to call in defence, maintaining that his clients had obtained peaceable possession by Btratagem, Thompson being a mere cypher in the matter, forcible entry was aotually on the part of the plaintiffs. His clients derived their possession from Fagan, who had been wavering be* tween the two parties, and he asked whether there was sufficient possession- title shown by either party to justify the sending of the case to a jury, The men on both sides were shuttlecock*, Mr Blair and the oompany being the real disputants.

His Worship said peaceable entry had not been obtained by stratagem as claimed, as the servant of Fagan was still in possession. He asked Mr Heaketh if it was deemed necessary to include the native, Johnson, in the ease, if so the whole of the depositions would require to be interpreted to him, —Counsel replied that they had no objection to the native being omitted.^His Worship tben struok out all the names of the persons in the original information as being owners or possessors of the destroyed hut except those of H. Thompson, W. F. Gibb, and W. Fagan, as no ownership had been by the evidence claimed for the others. The defendants, upon the advice of their counsel, expressed their intention of re-, serving their defence, and Mr Buttpn eajd he would call no evidence. They were then oommitted for trial. In committing them Mr Kenriffcsaid he agreed with the counsel for the defence that the matter ought not to have been brought in the form of a criminal oase, but it baying been so he was bound to dealt with it under legal rules, apart from the real Rqirit involved. That there had been violenf .e'q'try was clear, and, he felf th,at the merits of the case poqld best be inquired jnto by a jury. Pefendants were admitted to bail, themielrea £25 each, and two sureties of £25 each.' His Worship also stated that he would endorse the committals as cases which must' be privately prosecuted. The native, Q, Johnston, was called and discharged, the R.M. eiplajaing to him how lucky he wag to; flssspq fche result of hib conduct in taking part in the'proceedings at the hut.' .•■ ' ' --v ■' '