POLICE COURT, ARATAPU.

Wairoa Bell, Volume V, Issue 175, 9 December 1892, Page 2

POLICE COURT, ARATAPU.

Friday, December 2nd, (Before Mr T. Webb, J, P). John Maxwell was charged by Constable Scott with a breach of the Police Offences Act by trespassing on the land of Henry Spurr at Tatarariki on 23rd November. Thomas Reid was charged with a similar offence on 25th November. The evidence in both cases being the same it was decided to hear them together. Mr N. A. McLeod appeared for the accused. Henry Spurr deposed that the defendants were on his land on the dates named. He held his land on perpetual lease ; it comprised 110 acres and he had marked it out with sticks and flags. He had been subjected to a great deal of annoyance by the trespass of gumdiggers. On the 23rd ult. Maxwell and eleven others were on his land. Pie told him to go away but Maxwell kept on digging in defiance. He then got a witness and went to him again and ordered him off. Maxwell told him he could summons him. On several occasions previously ho had war ned him off and he had always refused to leave. On ths 25tli ult. he saw Reid on his land digging and ordered him off. Reid laughed at him and refused to go. This ho repeated in presence of a witness. He had not seen Reid trespassing at any other time. He had on several occasions shown Maxwell his boundaides, but not Reid. Cross-examined. —Maxwell had been digging on his land previously and paid him royalty, He had pegged out his boundaries himself; there was a surveyor’s peg at each corner of the property. His section was number 82 and he had put notices on the boundaries ; the land is not fenced. Only an acre of the property is fenced. He had held the lease for four years. Joseph Harling, a settler residing near Spurr’s had seen Spurr’s lease and knew that the boundaries were marked according to plan. On 23rd ult. he saw Maxwell on Spurr’s land digging gum. Heard Spurr tell him he was on private land and to clear out. He did not go, but said Spurr had been chargin g royalty and had no right to turn him off. He saw Reid digging gum on 25th ult. jus; below Spurr’s house and heard Spurr tell him it was private land. Spurr pointed out the peg to Reid who was about thirty yards inside it but he refused to go. Witness spoke to Reid but he only said nasty things in reply. He had previously seen Reid on Spurr’s land. Maxwell stayed two hours after lie was warned. Mr McLeod, solicitor for the defence, raised several points such as —• Maxwell hav - ing paid royalty previously had right to dig ; lease not produced to show Spurr’s title (the Court said the case would be adjourned if this point was pressed) ; no wilful intent shown ; no legal notice given of intention to disallow digging ; boundary lines not properly cut; proceedings should not have been taken in police court but in supreme court; Spurr not the owner. The Court decided to go on with the case and Mr McLeod said he would prove it was a case of mistaken identity. John Maxwell knew Spurr’s property ; he was digging on it for a week on royalty. Spurr told him ho could dig on it for 2s (id a week when the ground dried. Ou the 23rd lie went through the land but did not dig ou it; he dug some twenty yards off it. Karlin g never saw him on the 23rd ; he had known Hailing for six weeks. He and Reid were digging together that afternoon on the prairie. He paid Spurr 2/- for himself and 8/- for four others for a weeks’ digging ; that was about five weeks ago. Alf red Marsh'ill did not see Max’,veil on 23rd November. He saw Spurr speak to Cook on that day. On 25th he was digging on the prairie and saw Reid there all day; Maxwell was also (here. Joseph Campbell saw Reid on the prairie all' day on the 25th November. Horace Rowland was digging-below Spurr’s boundary on 23rd ult. Max well was also there. He saw Spurr and Hai ling speak to someone about three o’clock that afternoon. Constable Scott said that when Spurr complained to him he did not know the names of the offenders, but said he could ideutifv two out of the crowd. Witness knew Cook and did not think he could be mistaken for Maxwell. The Court said it was either an extraordinary case of mistaken identity or of grossly false swearing. In the case of Reid

three witnesses swore ho was on the prairie on the 25th and two that he was on Spnrr’s land. The case against him would have tc be dismissed. In the case of Maxwell the Bench considered. Harling’s evidence reliable and as there was no great provocation shown a fine of ten shillings would suffice.