SUPREME COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 6, Issue 1755, 7 August 1884, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO. Monday, August 6. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Kielraond.) [From the N.Z. Times.) PRICE V. NGATUERE TAUHAO. This was an appeal against a decision of Justices of the Peace sitting at Greytown. The information alleged that the defendant (Ngatuere) unlawfully and maliciously cut and broke a wire fence, the property of W. 0, Buchanan. The defendant in pleading, to the charge, said:" I admit breaking the fence, but it is a false accusation, it being on my own land. The place belonged to Mr Buchanan, but it was wrongly put on to my land." It was proved upon the hearing that a Crown grant had, in 1880, been issued to certain natives (among whom the defendant was not ineluded) of the Ahikoka South Block, and they had leased it to Buchanan for twenty-one years, The main road from Wellington to Masterton runs through the block, and for many years past boundary fences had been standing on each side of the road. Buchanan engaged the informant to erect new fences, and while the fence was being put up the defendant said to the informant, " I am going to cut the fence," which he did. No evidence was called for tli3 defence, but the defendant's counsel put in letters written from the Native Department to the defendant in 1874 and 1875, to the effect that no Crown grant had then been issued for the said block, and advising the defendant to allow, any dispute he might have concerning the land to be dealt with by law, and it was contended upon these that the defendant had been led to believe he was owner of the land, and was justified in committing the act complained of. The justices said that there was no evidence of malice upon the part of the defendant, and dismissed tho information, holding the above facts insufficient to support it, The informant appealed. Mr Izard, for the appellant: The justices were wrong in dismissing the information becausti they found the defendant was not acting from feelings of personal ill will, (Mr Jusiice Richmond ; The justices may have put the facts badly, but do the fact? show that the act was done under a colorable claim of title?) No; the defendant was not one of the grantees from whom Buchanan held 'under lease. (Mr Justice Richmond: But the defendant had occupied a whare on the land, and so had partial possession. This case is distinguished from the case of Reg v Price-N.Z.LR. 1 S.C. 354—decided by me). But the defendant did not set up a title to this land. (Mr Justice Richmond: The cutting down of the fence was an assertion of such a olaim. If the act was done under a bona fide claim of right the justice cannot convict. White v Feast (L.R. 7, Q.B. 353; 41 L.J., M.C.) If the Court is not satisfied, the.case should be referred baok to the jnstices to find on the question of bona fide ideas. Judgment was reserved.