RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 190, 28 September 1871, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., R.M.)

Thursday, " 21st Sept.

Ledrj&rwood v. Cb'over, — Adjourned for a week.

Barnelt v. Collins. — Claim, £2 J6s. Settled out of Court.

Tyler- v. Munro. —Claim, £5, being price of one heifer which defendant refused to deliver to plaintiff, being his property.

Mr. M'Coy appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Gooday for defendant.

The circumstances are these — In the month of August, 1870, the defendant undertook the charge of seven head of cattle to be allowed to run on the commonage, Tuapeka Plat, at the sum 5a per annum per head. ' • Six were delivered to defendant — the seventh was on the commonage, and he was to look after her. He was paid 5s for finding her. She remained along with the other cattle for sometime, and about January last disappeared. Defendant was paid the sum of 17s 6d, being the first half-year charge. Lately Tyler, the plaintiff, sold two of the cattle without giving any notice to Munro, and further,, asked Munro to deliver the remainder. Defendant returned four, which with the two sold would make the number he got delivery of. The heifer could not be found, although every search was made, and Mr. Gooday contended that Munro was not liable. The animal might have died of-tutu-might have gone into a hole. All that his client was bound to do. was -to use ordinary care and vigilence, Which he had done.

Mr. M'Coy contended . that defendant was liable. He got money for looking after them, and he should have done so. Various authorities were quoted by the learned gentleman.

His Worship remarked that, after considering the whole circumstances of the case, he considered that the defendant was not liable. He looked upon the defendant as being in the same capacity, and discharging the same duties, as a herd on any of the commons of England or Scotland. They agreed to look after the cattle, but were not liable in the event of death or accident. Defendant got so much money to look after the cattle, and he was of opinion he did his best. There was no negligence or carelessness brought home to him. He therefore find for defendant, plaintiff to pay costs of Court and one witness.

Sheddan v. Lancaster. — CJaim, £19 odd, being amount of fine and expenses imposed on plaintiff while acting in the employ of defendant, which he sought to recover.

Mr. Copland for the plaintiff, and Mr, M'Coy for defendant.

The circumstances are these — On or about the 28th April last, Sheddan was in the* employ of defendant at the Beaumont. He instructed him to proceed to Switzers with a mob of cattle, numbering 142 —50 cowa, 50 calves, and 42 mixed. Accordingly he started from the Beaumont, defendant assisting him for two or three miles. He told him to proceed to Switzers. Sheddan proceeded with the cattle through the Spylaw Station, and Roberts' Station, and got as I far as the Pomahawk, when Lancaster, accompanied by Mr. Hay, the auctioneer, overtook him, and he was ordered back to the farm, Lancaster and others going with the cattle. - Some' days afterwards, he was served .with a summons for not having given the necessary notice as laid down in the Cattle Ordinance. Whilst reading the summons Lancaster was present, and also read it. He was compelled to attend the Court at Tapanui, when he was fined the above amount, or the alternative" of two months in Dnnedin gaol. Lancaster refused to indemnify him.

At this stage of the proceedings it was found necessary to have the original summons served on Sheddan, or an authenticated copy (Sheddan having lost the copy served on him) under the hands of the Clerk of the Court or the Magistrate.

Mr. Copland stated that he had written to the Clerk of the Court, and produced his letter-book, where the letter was copied ; and that he had received a letter from the Clerk, giving a copy of original complaint.

Mr. M'Ooy objected, as secondary evidence could only be admissible when every endeavour to find the original document had failed. He contended that in this case the original complaint was in the Tapanui Courthouse, and could easily be found.

The Magistrate remarked that the letter received by Mr. Copland was signed by Mr. Purdue, as mounted trooper. He was not Clerk of the Court. The Tapanui Court was what is called an irregular court, the Magistrate visiting only once a month, and there was no resident Clerk ; and he suggested to Mr. Copland an adjournment until the document was forthcoming. He would grant an adjournment for this purpose." In the meantime he could get Mi-. Wood sent for, and produce all documents. The adjournment would be at the expense of his client.

Mr. Copland strongly objected, as it was no fault of hia, or. his client, that the document was not forthcoming. Rather than take an adjournment on such terms, he would elect to proceed with his case. He could not think of having his cKent saddled with the costs.

The case was gone on with, but it was found impossible to proceed, as the defendant would admit nothing. Ultimately it was agreed to adjourn the case for 14 days, plaintiff to pay one guinea professional fee.

O'Leary v. Carr. — Claim, £5, being the value of one pig, the property of plaintiff, in possession of Carr, and damage done to other pigs.

Mr. Gooday appeared for plaintiff, Carr acting as his own agent.

It appeared that on or about the 10th of September one of Carr's sons, along with another lad, went out to the ranges to hunt pigs. They came across some, and caught one. They tied him by the leg, and was driving him. - They meantime saw Mr. O'Leary coming towards them. They fasted the pig to a stick, and left it. Mr. O'Leary loosened the pig, and it went home. Mr. O'Leary knowing the boys, went to Carr and told him about the matter, and claimiag a pig then in Carr's sty, saying that he had missed it some eight days before.

Mr. Carr stated that it could not be his (O'Leary's) pig, as it was some months in his possession, and that he got it from Hart's boys when it was about a monlh old.

The evidedce of Hart went to prove that when he had the pi<r it was worth only about Ss. It was a stunted miserable thing. He thought it might be about three months. No one would take it as a pig of a month old. There was some arrangement amongst the boys about the pig. It was-three months since he got the pig.

James Smith was examined, and his evidence went to prove that Carr had the pig about the 20th of June. The pig was a miserable one, and valueless. He had no quarrel with O'Leary. O'Leary did not deal with him. He was independent of O'Leary, or any other man.

The boy Hart was examined, and stated that tbe pig was caught on the ranges about the beginning of July, and that the place where it was caught was about half a mile from O'Leary's. He did not know that the pig belonged to O'Leary. The Bench summed up, and gave verdict for defendant, £2, costs of Court, and expense of one witness, the pig to be the property of Carr.

Cavanagh v. Heaps. — Adjourned case. Mr. M'Coy for plaintiff, and Mr. .Copland for 'defendant.

The further evidence in this case was nob of such a sensational character as was anticipated ; the Courthouse, however, was pretty full.

The evidence for the defence went to show that the plaintiff held a fair character ; that she was very frequently in the house of defendant ; that no improper .intimacy was ever observable. Occasionally they " sky larked," as young people will do. One of the witnesses observed that he thought that they looked like " lad and lass." She was discharged from her situation because she would not gat up oirly \n the morning, A good, deal of

evidence wa3 heard, but of no particular interest.

Mr. Copland said that he would have liked to have cross-examined the father, as he thought by doing so he would be furthering the case of his client, and the ends of justice at the same time.

Mr. M'Coy objected, as Cavanagh had already been cross-examined ; and moreover, the case was specially adjourned for the examination of one witness, Nixon. Mr. Copland lamented that he was not employed earlier, as he would have been better able to have conducted the case. He then addressed the Bench, going over all the case. He speech occupied one hour. Mr. M'Coy briefly replied. The Bench, having summed up, dismissed the case.