RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 342, 28 March 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuesday, 24th March. (Before E. H. Cavew, Esq., R.M., and E. Herbert, Esq., J.P.) Ityan v. Cowan. — This was an information charging the defendant with unlawfully and maliciously shooting a cow the property of the informant. Mr. M'Coy appeared for the informant ; Mr. Copland for the accused. Martin Ryan, settler, Waitahuna,depoßed — The cow in question was milked on the morning of the Bth March, and was then uninjured. It was afterwards turned out to feed, and was seen by me in a paddock belonging to the accused, among the turnips. Sa%v Cowan walk from his house with a gun in bis hand about 150 yards towards the cow: When he was within a few yards of the cow he presented his gun at her and fired. The cow gave a spring. Did not think at the time that the cow was injured. Thought Cowan was firing a blank charge to frighten her. Saw the cow shortly afterwards lying down in plaintiff's own paddock wounded, apparently by shot. Some of the wounds were bleeding, and the cow seemed in pain. Went and asked Cowan to come and look at the cow, but he declined. Then brought Jeremiah Byan and Daniel Ryan, neighbors, to come and look at the cow on the Friday, after Constable Hughes examined the cow and picked out some pellets of shot from the «kin. The cow received no other injuries in the interval. Daniel Byan, settler, Waitahuna, cousin of the informant, deposed — On Sunday, the Bth March, I was passing about 9 o'clock in the morning. Saw the cow in Cowan's turnips. Saw Cowan walking towards the cow with a gun in his hand. When within a few yards, Cowan presented 'the gun at the cow and fired. It ran a piece. About half an hour afterwards, Martin Byan came to me and asked me to come and look at the cow. Jeremiah Byan and I went and looked at her. She seemed in pain, and was wounded with shot. The shot must have been fired from a short distance, as several had apparently entered so close as to make one hole. Some of the holes had blood coming from them. Counted thirty. There were more than that number. Afterwards extracted a pellet of shot from the skin. There were no other signs of injury about the cow than those produced by the shot. Jeremiah Byan, settler, Waitahuna, brother of the informant, deposed — Was on Sunday, the Bth March, in Cowan's property searching for a horse. This was about 9 o'clock in the morning. Saw Cowan walking towards' the cow with a gun in hiß hand, When he was within a few paces he presented the gun at her and fired. Was asked by Martin Byan about half an hour afterwards to look at the cow. Witness then spoke of the condition of the cow, corroborating the testimony of the hut witness. Jeremiah Byan, junior, son of the informant, also deposed that on the morning of the Bth March, he saw Cowan shoot the cow. Samuel Hughes, police conttable stationed at Waitahuna — Heard casually of the matter from one of the Byans. Went on Thursday, the 12th March, and saw the cow. It had been wounded by 6hot Picked out three pellets (produced). The injuries were three or four days' old. Saw no other sign of injury But the gun shot wounds, First heard of it the previous evening. Mr. Copland raised some points of law for the defence, which were overruled. He then addressed the Bench at some length. The accused, having been duly cautioned, was asked if he had anything to Bay. He said " I am not guilty." Thoir Worships were of opinion that a prirm facie case had been made out, and committed the accused for trial at the next sittings of the Supreme Court at Lawrence. Mr. Copland having stated that he would prefer that course to the accused having to take his trial at Dunedin. Mr. Copland then asked that the accused should be enlarged on bail. Tbiswas done, he being bound in one bond of £100, with two securities of £60 each. ' The informant and witnesses were then bound Aver to appear at the next sittings of the Supreme Court at Lawrence. The informant was asked whether he proposed to manage the prosecution himself or not. He intimated through his counsel that he would prefer leaving the management oi it to the Crown Prosecutor. Battieton v. Barbary,— Claim of £12 16s. 46?.; for balance, of. wages due. Mr. M'Coy for plaintiff; Mr. Gooday for defendant. The plaintiff had worked for the defendant

on a water race in 1870 or 1871, at Waikaia. The raceholders had some difficulty about completing the enterprise, and Balliston on leaving was paid £7 10s., and undertook to let the balance remain for two years. That balance had not been paid, and was now sued for. Mr. Gooday produced a receipt, purporting to be a settlement, signed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff admitted his signature, but said that what he signed was then a page in a book, and there was something more written in the page than appeared on the paper. (The paper appeared to be a part of a page cut out of an account book.) Some points of law were raised by Mr. ' Gooday, which were decided against him. Mr. M'Coy quoted^ the case of Fitch v. Sutton as being in point. Mr. Gooday asked for and obtained an adjournment for a fortnight. M'Combe v. Cotton and Henry. — This was a claim for £10 for the wrongful detention by the defendants of a cow belonging to the plaintiff. Mr. M'Coy appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr. Copland for the defendants. Stewart M'Combe, cattle dealer, deposed — I purchased a yellow and white cow, branded as described in the bill of particulars, from William Law RiddeU, farmer, Otakia, about two months ago. Riddell described the cow, and told me where it was. I found it there, and took possession -of it. I afterwards saw the cow with Cotton and Henry's cattle. They refused to deliver it up, alleging that it belonged to them. I saw it afterwards in Mr. Wright's yard at Waipori. I have been at considerable expense endeavoring to obtain the restitution of the cow. The Court then adjourned to Wednesday, 25th March, when the case was continued. James Wright, butcher, Waipori, deposed — I purchased the cow from Cotton and Henry, and have since slaughtered it. The brands were as described in the bill of particulars, except one, which I could not make out. It might or might not be the same as one given in the bill of particulars. I have killed many cattle of t^otfcon and Henry's bearing other brands in addition to their own. I cannot remember the other brands. Do not recollect ever killing one of theirs with |xj on it. William Law Riddell, farmer, Taieri — I sold this cow to Stewart M'Combe about two months ago. I identified it afterwards in Wright's paddock. I purchased the cow in 1871 from- Charlton, who purchased it from Mr. Grant. Mr. Grant had some cattle which •had got across the Molyneux, and these he sold to Charlton and another on M'Lean's station. When I took delivery from Charlton, the only brand handy was M'Lean's H brand ; we put this on, but on the opposite side to that on which Mr. M'Lean branded, and put it horizontally to distinguish it further. Had the beasfc in a yard afterwards, when it was spayed, but had never put my own braud on as I could never get in the cow when I was branding. Have no doubt but that the cow purchased from Charlton, and sold to M'Combe, and afterwards identified in Wright's paddook fey me, is the same. Do no recollect ever seeing the beast in Cotton and Henry's yard. For the defence, Mr. Copland called Samuel Henry, who deposed — I am one of the defendants. I am a licensed victualler residing at Waipori. About twelve months ago, my partner Cotton and I purchased from Mr. Grant all the cattle bearing his brand. (Memorandum produced.) This cow bears his brand. It is not quite correctly described in the bill of particulars. Sold it to Wright at so much a hundred weight. The price-was about £5 ss. — . Irwell, stockrider in the employ of defendants, deposed — Remember about 12 months ago, when some cattle were mustered in yar 3s at the Beaumont Station. This cow was among them. llr. Grant pointed her out to me, and told me to take her with the others. Mr. Grant did not go to the yards himself. Riddell, Irwin, Hunt (a servant of Cotton and Henry's) , and Cotton were there. Did not hear Riddell claim this cow. There were about 20 cows there. Think lie must have seen her. Some of the cattle broke out in the night ; this cow was amongst them. The rest were taken away by Cotton and Henry. Have seen a heifer of Cotton and Henry's with H on it. — . Vivian, miner, Waipori — I know this cow. Was present at the time the last witness spoke of. Did not hear Riddell claim the claim the cow. There was one brand on the cow ; not easy to make it. (Witness made one as like it as he could remember.) The cow is not accurately described in the bill of particulars ; but it is something the same. • Robert Cotton, one of the defendants, corroborated the previous evidence. The cow had beeu with other cattle of his in a yard since, when Biddell was there. He never claimed it. Mr. Copland addressed the Bench for the defence. Mr. M'Coy submitted that the defence set up was merely an abortive attempt to prove that Mr. Grant had sold the cow to Cotton and Henry. This would not prejudice his client; as, if Mr. Grant had done so, and it was contended that he had not, he would have been disposing of that which did not belong to him. As, if Biddell's evidence was true, which there was no reason to doubt, Mr. Grant had sold the cow to him long before the alleged sale to Cotton and Henry. Judgment reserved. Cowan v. Ryan. — This -was a claim for £20 for damages sustained by the 1 plaintiff, owing to several trespasses of the cattle of the plaintiff, extending as far back as 1872. Mr. Copland appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. M'Coy for the defendant. John Black, miner, Waitahuna — Saw a bull of Byan's in Cowan's oats in the year 1872. There was a gap in the fence. v Could not say whether the bull made the gap, and did not know what damage was done to the oats. Was not sure of the date. John Miller, Waitahuna — Bemember seeing Byan's bull break down Cowan's fence in December, 187&. • Saw* the bull in the oats. He was there about a quarter of an hour. Drove him out. -Am not certain it was in December. In November last saw four cows of Byan's coming through the fence to Cowan's potatoe paddock. Do not know whether they did any damage or not. Catherine Cowan, wife of the plaintiff — Defendant's cattle came into the garden and destroyed the cabbages. The damage was £5 or £6. Don't know how many cabbages there were, or the value of a cabbage ; but know the damage done was ' to the extent of £5 or £6. John M f Allister, settler, Waitahuna — Have seen cattle in Cowan's ground, some of which were Byan's, I don't know what damage they did. John Cowan, the plaintiff — Am settler residing at Havelock. Ryan's bulls trespassed in my oats in December, 1872. I was then shearing. He broke down the fence. It took me half a day to put it up. Witness then deposed several trespasses, laying the damages each time at fiom ss. to £1.

As it was getting dark, the Court adjourned at this stage till Friday.