THE COURTS. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 231, 4 July 1872, Page 7

THE COURTS. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before Vincent Pyke, Esq., R.M.) Thursday, 27th June.

Gorsan v. Scott. — Claim £0 ss. damage for trespass of cattle. Mr. Copland appeared for plaintiff. Plaintiff and deferrtlant are residents at Canada reef, and hold adjoining properties. Plaintiff had sheep and defendant cattle — there being no dividing §fence between. Defendant had asked plaintiff to give him a hand in erecting a fence, but he refused. 23 head of cattle, the property of the defendant, had been repeatedly on plaintiffs ground, and he claimed the above amount, being ss. per head. There was nrv proof that tho plaintiff's sheep ever trespassed an 1 defendant's ground. The 11. M., in giving judgment, 'said that if the defendant had consul ted any legal adviser he would at once tell him that his case was not a good one. The law was clear on the subject; where two properties adjoin each owner mtrat keep.his cattle on his own land, and notallow them to trespass on that of his neighbour. Verdict for plaintiff for amount claimed with costs, and 21s. professional fee. Sheath v. TreloaY. — Claim £5, being damage done to plaintiffs sheep by defendant's dog. Mr. Mouat for appeared for plaintiff; Mr. Copland for defendant. Plaintiff stated that on the 29th June he saw defendant amongst some cattle in a paddock adjoining plaintiff's property. A dog, which followed hinij was running after I plaintiff's sheep. Shortly afterwards defendant went to the ranges, the dog following him. In the evening, on his return, thedog was still with him. When asked to whom ifc belonged, he said he knew nothing about the animal. The sheep were much scattered, and two were missing. Defendant said that he had seen the dog in the paddock some 4 or 5 days prior to the 24th. -He did not know to whom it belonged. Had seen him on one or two occasions at the house. Never owned him, and never fed him. He seemed to make a stack of straw in an adjoining paddock his lodging place. On the morning of 24th June the dog did not follow witness to the hills. When plaintiff accosted him on his return from the ranges, the dog was beside him. Where he came from ho could not tell ; had not seen him since morning. Had seen the dog repeatedly in the paddock where plaintiff's sheep were. Mr. Pyke said that, after going carefully over the case, he gave higher credence to the plaintiffs evidence, and would give judgment in his favour for £1 and costs.