TAPANUI.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 107, 26 February 1870, Page 5

TAPANUI.

(From our own Correspondent). On Saturday, sth instant, our monthly Court was held, before I. N. Wood, Esq., R.M., and some very important cases disposed off. Yaldwin, of Dalvey station, sued M'Alister for £10 damages done to sheep by his dog. James Rodgers was called and deposed that he saw a dog with hold of a sheep. He examined the sheep, but saw nothing wrong with it. The dog ran off in the direction of 4hestation. He tried to follow it, but could not. He then reported the circumstance' at the station, where a dog like the one* referred to was shown him, and said to be M'Allister's. The dog was black and tan. He had seen many dogs of the same colour, and could not swear the dog shown him was the same he had seen tearing the sheep. He was aware that a dcg working sheep on a station would ga back and round them. In rounding-up-sheep, a dog sometimes catches hold of' one. Matheson, Yaldwin's shepherd, who tried several times to evade the administration of the oath, was severely reprimanded by the Magistrate. His evidence was to the effect that on going over the paddocks he found four sheep and two lambs lying-dead, evidently having been torn by a aog\ After several questions had been put to this witness by the defendant, he was ordered by the Magistrate to leave the Court. M'Allister was then sworn, and stated that he had had the dog four years, and never knew it to harm, sheep, or it would have been to his interest to destroy it. Witness had left Yaldwin's employment, and it was only natural for the dog to return to the station. He had promised Yaldwin to- destroy the dog if he could prove that it had killed the sheep referred to. Case dismissed. Yaldwin v. M'Allister. — This Y&a a charge brought against defendant for threatening to assault plaintiff, and also for using threatening language, such as "He was a dangerous man," and "He would kill him," &c. Yaldwin deposed that he had told M'Allister, his shepherd, to get the sheep in to wash by half-past five or six o'clock on Monday morning, and they were not got in till half-past six, which caused great loss of water, and the men were kept idle. Angry words then passed, Yaldwin telling M'Allister if he disobeyed his orders again he would dismiss him. Cross-examined by M'Allister — Could not remember saying he would take it out of him. Swore he said Yaldwin was a dangerous man, and would kill him. William Yeand called— He was brother-in-law to Yaldwin, and eleven years old. Saw M'Allister holding up his fist in a threatening way before Yaldwin. M'Allister sworn, deposed that Mr. Yaldwin tad come to V»im on the morning in question very excited, and angry words passed. Fined 20s. and costs. M'Allister v. Yaldwin. — Claim for six months' wages. From the agreement which M'Allister produced, it appeared that his engagement with Yaldwin commenced on the Bth October, at the rate of £65 per annum, with a bonus of £5 if the agreement was carried out till- the 7th December. After taking out some sheep angry words passed. Yaldwin told him to leave the station. Said he would do so on receiving his wages, as it was no use master and servant being together if they could not agree. He then left. He had been a shepherd sixteen years. He considered Yaldwin unfit to be overseer on a station, as he knew nothing about it. Yaldwin deposed that in consequence of something he heard from some of the men in the shed, he discharged M'Allister for disobedience of orders and incompetency to perform his work. Examined by M'Allister— Did not complain of you not doing your work right. You were in my employment four or five months before the engagement in October, at a rise of wages from £52 to £65. You disobeyed the manager of the shed. Did not tell you Mr, Edgar would give you orders, but told you I had nothing to do with the shed. After considering the evidence, his Worship said Mr. Yaldwin seemed to haye been*satisfied with M'Allister, as he had promoted him at an increase of wages. The Court would therefore award him sixty-three days' wages, £5 expenses, and costs of court. Pears v. Taylor.— For stealing books and papers from his blacksmith's shop. As the two had been partners previously, and the case not being properly stated, nonsuited. Scott v. Taylor.— For an IOU. for LlO 14s. Scott was willing to wait till next Court day, so that Pears and Taylor would have time to appoint a trustee to collect heir debts.