R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 5, Issue 1531, 10 November 1883, Page 3

R.M. COURT.

; • M ASTERTON,'—THURSDAY. BEFOKB H-. S; Wardell, E,M, Drujimond v Meredith-continued. To Mr Allen: I returned tho wliolo " of Hari(lyside. Eoberts, it Co'.'s run " as infected. tho Court: Ido not consider any HAv fence to.be sheep proof. W® William Henry Oa'nierbn, a rabbit agent, formerly manager for the .Riveradale station, staled that he had'chargo of the sheep upon the run, including Wairongfi, for a period of nino months, -ending in Juno . last. Ho knew the fence erected between Waironga and , ihe other portion of the run, It was an ordinary seven wire fence, When witness was there no lambs were kept .■ 'on the !Waironga side. Tho fence ■would not be a safe one against lambs, It was in qood repair. The Waironga lambs last February got into tho Uriti Block. Had known sheep to stray from one block to the other. Second class ewes wero moved from Uriti to "Waironga. There were shearing sheds at both Waironga and Rivevsdale, There was a dwelling at Waironga and "V a homestead at Riversdale. While. witness was in Mr Meredith's employ Mr Baillie gavo a notice to Mr Meredith. To Mr Allen: Did not consider any • we fence in New Zealand sheep proof, He called Mi- Meredith's attention to the fact, but could not say when. Mr, ; Drummond told him the fence was not • • sheep proof, There is a dip at Waironga, • • - • To Mr Bunny: The dip at Waironga would not answer for infected .sheep. Robert Barnett, objected to give tovidenco without his expenses being paid, After an assurance on this point ■he proceeded to state that he had been a shepherd in Meredith's employ (from "February 6 to October 26). He looked •after the Riversdale sheep:' He had •H- nothing to do with the Waironga

sheep. Thjjpividing fence was a good ono for shficp. Wliou tlio mouth of tho Waiiionga stream was closed a fence would prevenl!,sheep straying between Waironga.and Uriti, Mr Buiiny; Would there bo any difficulty in lambs getting through the fence, Witness: There wero 110 lambs to get through. George Moore, shcepfarmer, objected to appearing, as Mr Meredith and himself wore neighbors. The Court informed him that ho had 110 option in the matter. He then stated that 110 had known the Riversdale property for nearly thirty' years. The dividing fence extended to the slapping shed, which was about half a chain from the high wator mark. The Waironga stream in the summer months would not be a sheeib boundary. The Riversdale ran was managed from Riversdalo by Mr Edwin Meredith; this included Waironga, Adams Peak, the Green Hills, and Uriti. ' To Mr Allan: My sheep are scabby, I lost my certificate five months after Mr Meredith 's was cancelled. I understand that tliG Waironga run was separated by Mr E, Moredith, senior, from the Riversdale run when he conveyed it to his son. Whon my sheep were declared to be infected I sent notice to the person in charge of tho sheep at Waironga. Mr Gordon Allan, for tho defence, submitted that there was 110 evidence that the Rivorsdale certificate had been cancelled. Tho Gazette notice had not been put in, and the notico in the newspaper was not signed as the Act required by a chief inspector. Mr Drummond had oven said there was no Chief Inspector in tho Department. There was no evidence that either the Riversdale or Waironga certificates had been cancelled, The Court was notsure that Mi' Allan was correct in stating that tho publishing of a notico was tho act of cancellation.

Mr Allen said the act gavo tho Inspector 110 other power of cancellation. Tho Court said if it admitted that there was 110 Chief Inspector, every Hock in tlio colony could movo about at pleasure. It could not take upon itself the responsibility of deciding that such was the case. ■ Mr Gordon Allan passing this point stated that the defendant would be able to show that Mr Sutton had given separate certificates for the Riversdale and Waironga runs, The greater part of the evidence adduced had nothing to do ■. with the case. It was immaterial whether the fenco referred to was sheep proof or no. No evidence had been brought to show that tho Wai. roiiga sheep wero a part of any Hock, .The Court pointed out that when one owner held adjacent runs the Act treated them practically as one run,' W. A, P. Sutton late Sheep Inspector proved that the Departmenthad treated Rivcrsdalo and Waironga as separate runs, and that the notico of infection which lie served on the defen dant only referred to Riversdale and did not include Waironga. Tho defendant was called and produced a clean certificate formerly given for the Waironga flock which had never been cancelled, The Court dismissed the information on the ground that the Departnientliad treated' Riversdale and Waironga as separate runs, and that.the cancellation of tho clean certificate only referred to Riversdale, J. Vile v T. Dixon,—Debt 17s 3d, Judgment for 5s 3d paid in and 10s allowed for defendant's expenses, W. Riddle v W. Williams,—Debt £1 Os 9d, Order made to pay the money within 14 days or 28 days' imprisonment, J. Ewington v M, Dowling.—Debt t £3 Is 6d. Order made to pay within 7 days or M days imprisonment, G. Heron vW. Dixon.—Debt £27 3s 3d, Judgment for amount andcosts. S. .Knight v T. P. Girdwood.—Debt 18s. Judgment for lis and costs 21s. F. Gray (trustee Toomath's estate) v Theatre Royal Company,—Debt £l2 Gs sd. Judgment for amount and costs, .

That Husband of Mine is three times tho man ho was bcforo lio began using " Wolla' Health Reucwer, Druggists, Moses, Mosa & Co,, Sydney, General Agents, Hough on pats,"—clears out. rats, mico roaches, flies, ants, bed-bugs, beetles, insects skunks, jack-rabbits, gophers, Drug' gists, Moses, Moss & Co,, Sydney, Gonerai Agents.