WARDEN'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 223, 9 May 1872, Page 7

WARDEN'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before Vincent PykV, E*q., Warden.) - Wednesday, Ist May. Inspector of Depasturing Licenses' v. Walter Miller.- Defendant was pharged with depasturing 2000 sheep on the Goldfields Commonage without a license. JVlr. Copland appeared for defendant. Thia case was an action precisely similar .to the case against defendant a few days before, when he wa3 fined £50. Mr. Copland, in opening the case, severely criticised tjjie action of plaintiff in bringing the case into Court, not having given defendant sufficient time to remove the sheep, as the last case against his client was only settled on the afternoon previous to his having brought on the present action, and compared him to a cat watching his prey. He did think that under any circumstances sufficient time should be allowed to remove the sheep, as defendant had to go to his horne — a distance of twenty miles, and could not in reason be expected to remove them In such a short ported ; and moreover, when plaintiff" was on the ground defendant's seryants were in the act of removing the sheep. The plaintiff deposed to his having gone to see if defendant had .taken his sheep off the goldfields, as he had stated in Court the previous day that the whole of the sheep were removed outside the boithdary. lie found the sheep on the same ground on which he had found them formerly. He was on the ground about nine o'clock a.m. About eleven o'clock lid saw Mr. Thompson, and had a conversation with him. He was driving sheep off the Commonage. Considered defendant had ample time to remove the sheep. Had no animosity whatever against defendant. Mr. Copland proceeded to ask plaintiff questions relative to an application which he had gv m him. * The VVarden said that, he was always unwilling to interrupt counsel, but the questions being put really had nothing to do with the case. The question was, were the sheep on the ground on the day named ? The only plea of importance bhat the defendant put forth was that sufficient time had not been given him to remove the sheep. He considered that twenty-four hours was little enough time to enable defendant t« remove the sheep. Had it been the day afterwards, it would ha^ve altered the case. He would advise the Inspector to withdraw the case. The- case was withdrawn. Mr. Cop* land asked for expenses, which were, however, refused.