January 25.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 261, 30 January 1873, Page 6

January 25.

T. Oager said he had been twe T ve months in the neighborhood of Bia ks, was employed l>y plaintiff, and know the paddocks in which plaiutiff's i-heep were. During the whole of the time he did not see any of .Low's sheep in Lisk's or the othsr paddocks. Jle took tbe sheep he ki.led between the 9fch and 18ch of August from Lusk's paddock. These included the twenty-one 'sheep. He knew the sheep well, because they not only had the O brand on, but also a civss on the loin. The latter wa3 particularly Mr Glassford's brand. William U. Bourke said he was manager of the Bank of the New South Waks at Black-, ami knew plaintiff. He hal an account at the Bank in August last. [Counsel proposed to ex mine witness as to pLiutiffs character, but was opposed.] This concluded plaintiffs case. ThDmas King Weldon, C tmmissioner of Police, said he knew ex-Sergeant Lynch. Lynch left the force of his owh accord, and was recommended for good conduct and ability as an officer. He gathered this fact from the records. William Anderson Low, the defendant, said on the morning of the 9th of Tuly, plaintiff culled ou hrn at the stati >n. Plaiutiff said he was sorry that *>oine of his sheep brought from Glassford had wandered on to Omakao statio 1. 1J c asked how many, and plaint(ff said, "They all have got av\ay; I was unab'e to keep th^ni." He then said that he had heard complaints from his shepherd at -blacks to the eflx-ct tlu.t he had a deal of trouh c in trying to keep those s'iec;> of the run. i'iamtiff replied, " I have done my best ; 1 en^agod. a van at LI a week to look after them." He a^ked the name of the man, aud the reply wa>, Morri*y ; also, that Morrisy was not a shepherd, but was working out a debt he owed plaintitf. He remarked that it was 100 bad of plaiutiff to have sheep ruuning at large without a proper shepheid to look after them, aud that his sh.-pher I ha I more trouble than he otherwise would have had. He tod him at the saint* tune that he had been informed that plaintiff hail bought the sheep with the idea cf letting them mix with the sheep on the run, and further that ho had a lowed them to stray into Mr (Jla sf.»rd's flock intentionally, and was fined for it. Plaintiff replied, "ihat is true ; I am sorry for it," and then ejplaiued that he had had the sheep he bought from Glassford in the agiicultur>l paddocks, at Blacks, for some time ; that they had euten off all the stubble, and that therefore he 1-aJ taken them to other piddocka a' Tiger Hi.l, on GlassforJ's si ie <f the Manuhe.ikia I liver, and also to save the risk of their straying on to defen lant'a run. l'Jaintiff also said that a dog got amongst them there, aid drove thuin o\-r the fence among Glassford's sheep. After he got them out from Glassford's sheep again, he took them back to Blacks Flat. Tnere, in const quence of a heavy fall of suuw and want of feed and shelter, he was forced to let them go on to the ranges. He then asked defendant what he would do in the matter, and defendant replied, "I do not know until I have found out how many have wandered, bub I think it will be neceasasy to prosecute for trespass, as Gla3sfordhad done." Plaintiff entreated him not to do so, as he was a poor man, and nearly ruined through customers at Blacks "sloping" and not paying for their meat. Ho then reminded plaintiff of complaints made by the shepherds of trespass, and driving cattle and sheep off the run, and of plaintiff having taken part iv those acts. He asked how it was that there were five rams with the old ewes when on the other side of the river, and plaintiff replied, " I could not help them joining ; and as my dog was a bad one, and the sheep were weak; I did not see how 1 codld separate them." He then asked him if he hid not t.ikeu away thirty head of cattle from near the Serpentine Creek, and if he had not been trying to break down the partition fence in order to pass them over Campbell and Low's run. Plaintiff denied this, but after a while saM, "There weie only nineteen head." He then pointed out that plaintiff had a right to remove stock, without notice, and plaintiff replied, " I know that 1 was very rash, but I was in a hurry." He al uded to several inj.iriou? rumors regarding plaintiff's character, and plaintiff said, *' do not believe them, I am a down-right honest man." After tdk ng the matter over, he finally agreed to buy the sheep, and asked plaintiff toxv many he bad bou^lit from CJi»s->foreL The reply was. that originally he received from 600 to 65J from Glassford, but that by killing, and other means, he had reduced them to about 160, but was not quite certain as to the exact number. He then said, " well as there is some doubt as to the number, we will call it 200." Plaintiff replied, " I will guarantee 180 if you will pay me now." He then saidthathecoaldnotinany case piv until after the sheep were mustered. Plaiutiff then sigued the agreement produced and went away. He heard nothing more of the sheep or M'Comb ui>til the Saturday night bt-fore he* laid the information against him. It was reported to him then that the head shepherd at Blacks had seen twentyone of the sheep sold by M'Comb to Low, in M 'Comb's yard, and that M'Comb was killing them. On that morning Cunstab'e M'Gann came to the station, and reported that MOouib was killing sheep, alleged to be defendant's property. He told M'Gann that he was going to Blacks to inquire into the matter, and also that there might be more than 200 sheep on the run belonging to plaintiff, and that he could not, ace ;rding to the agreement, claim more than that number. M'Gann then said, "MVomb told me he had sold you the whole of the sheep," and also that he thought there was a good case against M'Comb. He then went to I lyde and laid the information, which led to M'Cumb's arrest, and subsequenti examination before % magistrate, §u>

sequently, he saw plaintiff twice. On the first occasion he did not offer him the rangership of the run, and the remainder of the conversation as stated by plaintiff was a faoricat'on. He did not use the words to p'aintiff, "If you don't settle with me I will be your enemy." Plaintiffs version of what was said on the second occasion at the station was a lie from beginning to end. He knew of no building at Tinker's Gully worth Ll5O. - Cross-examined : In effect, plaintiff denied the charge made by the shephtrds of having been in the habit of goinpr over the run and driving away cattle and sheep. Before he drew up the agreement, VI 'Comb said there were not more than from 160 to 200 nnkilled of the sheep purchased from Glassford. He could net say he heard plaintiff use the word "rangership." His object in going to plaintiff's house was to prevent this or any action likely to arise out of his former action again«t M'Comb. There were no beads of arrangements more than that he offered to pay plaintiffs expenses, and exprosse.l regr.it at what had occurred. During that interview, plaintiff said he was hard-up. After a while, plaintiff said that after the bulk of the sheep had got away on to defendant's run, about 100 of" them came back, and he " collared" them and put them into his yard. After the contract was completed—on the 9th* of July— hs liberated thtm on to the run. Plaintiff made this statement in answer to the rumors current respecting him Plaintiff denied having told him lies regarding the transaction, or any part of it. He never offere 1 plaintiff ths privilege of grazing his cattle on def-ndant's run. Hedi.l not a-=k M'Gann to settle this action with plaintiff. He di 1 suggest to Sloan to enter an action against MVomb with the idea of bringing ab ut a settl ment of his own case. He did not at any time say to plaintiff, " I can settle the case between you and Sloan, if you will settle mine " On Monday the jury, after an hour and a quarter's deliberation, found for the plaintiff; damages L 770.