R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 4, Issue 1078, 19 May 1882, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON—THURSDAY.

Befoiie H. S. Wabdell, Esq,, KM.

Darley & Knight vßountree.—Carriage £23 83 Id. Mr Beard for defendant. Judgment for £1714s Id, - W. Perry v Jno, Cummirig.-Debt £3 3s 7(1. Judgment for amount , and costs £l9a.

Briggs & Warren v D. Foster.—Debt £1 lis 10(1. No appearance of defendant, Judgment for amount and costs and 10s witness' expenses.:.. : . 1 , Alfred Clifton v Samuel Groves.' Judgment summons L 3813., Order made for payment within seven days, in default 28 day's imprisonment.''' Darley & Knight v Henry : Aul" 1 - - Debt L4O 4s. Judgment for amount and costs LI 18a. S; E; Chamberlain v Brown Hunt, DamagesL7. Mrßunny for plaintiff, Mr Beard for defendant.

S. E, Chamberlain, plaintiff, stated that on 20th '.March he was away from home, butin the evening some uf liia pigs had been shot—a black sow with eight suckers. Saw the dead pig a day or two afterwards in a wator-liolo on defendant's property, He extricated the bullet (produced), He valued the pig and suckers at L3loa. There were two sows, the secoud one not. having beon seeir since the day the blaok sow was shot. He valued this also at L 3 10s. ■Had a conversation' with defendant as to what he was going to do about the pig on the 20th, Hunt said lie had shot four pigs on the 20th —two black ones and two white ones, but did not know who they belonged to. "Witness,' told defendant he would give him till Thursday to settle the matter, and would take proceedings against him after that day.' Defendant said that if he took piooeadintjs against him lie would tell Mr Holmes that plain-' liff had shot one of his bulls. Received a letter from Hunt on Thursday last to clear off his pigs and dogs or they would be shot, and that lie would sue anyone found trespassing on his land. Witness asked defendant to show him tho four pigs shot, hut ho declined to take tho trouble. Their properties adjoined, and defendant's cattle strayed on to his land. Was not 011 very good terms with defendant. Had searched for the white sow, but could not tind it, and concluded that it ha,l gone the '■nine way as '.he black one, By Mr Beard: Defendant's cattle strayed mi to his land and his pi js on to defendant's property. Ho had eight pigs running loose previous to the black sow being ' shot, besides suckers. He was quite aware that the fence was not pig proof. There were wild pigs on the property. There was ns much difference between wild and tame pigs as there was between a horse and a donkey,' and Hunt knew the pigs belonged to witness. He clniined for the second pig because defendant admitted killing four piga. Had lost three pigs by rabbit poison in the winter, Thomas Wyeth remembered the 20th. He heard a gunshot on that day and went to the spot and found Chamberlain's white sow and some suckers bailed up by Hunt's dogs and his black sow-lying dead. Went to the place where he heard the shot almost immediately and drove the do»s away, Did not see anyone about, Examined the pig when he first went down. It was bleeding then.' Afterwards ifound the pig in a waterhole some distance from where it was shot.

By Mr Beard: Thought the suckers were worth Gs each.

John Duclcett deposed to seeing defendant coming from the direction of plaintiff's property with dogs and carrying a gun.

Fro new Frederick Hunt, son of defendant, deposed ho was present at a conversation between plaintiff and defendant nn 29th March. He knew two of plaintiffs pigs were nn his father's land. Plaintiff asked him if ho had seen his pigs there, and lie told him lie liad seen a black sow with young ones On the 20th witness' father went out with his gun. When he came home he said he had shot four pigs, but did not know to whom they bolonged. Witness was familiar with the ground where the black sow was killed, and some Maoris 'had killed two wild pigs there since. He had seen wild pigs there a yoar ago. Wild and tame pigs were alike except in the hair. The sow was killed about 100 yards from a spur where wild pigß had been killed.

By Mr Beard: His father had been much bothered by pigs lately. Ho said lie would kill the pigs off as they destroyed the lambs. This closed the case for the plaintiff, and Mr Beard asked for a nonsuit as there was no evidence to show that defendant had killed the pig. His Worship could not grant a nonsuit as if defendant shot tho pig lie would have to pay for it' Mr Beard contended that he only had the one pig to answer for as there was nothing to shew but that the second one simply strayed away.

His Worship agreed with Mr Beard on this point, and Mr Bunny asked that the bill of particulars might be amended to this effect, which was agreed to.

Mr Beard intimated that ho did not intend to call auy evidence, but.pointed out that plaintiff had been guilty of cross negligence in allowing his pigs to stray. Wild pigs had become such a nuisance to defendant that he was obliged to lako measures to destroy them. Defendant had also repeatedly cautioned plaintiff about bis pigs. His Worship gave judgment for L2, and cost LI 19s. THIS DAY. T, L. Thompson v J. McKenzie.—Debt LB 19s 8d . Judgment for amount and costs, Same v A. Love.—Debt L 6 Us sd. Judgment for amount and costs. Same v D. Foster.—Debt L 7 4s lOd. Judgment for L 5 4s lOd and costs. Sime v L. Holmes,—Debt LI 2s 6d. Judgment for amount and costs.