HOGS AT EKETAHUNA.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3484, 14 April 1890, Page 3

HOGS AT EKETAHUNA.

A QUABMH*AtlheEketakimE.M: Court on > Friday last, boforo - Colonel Roberts, K.M., Jamo3 Rubriob was charged on the information of Edward Morris with malicious injury to property, to wit, tho shooting of'two pgß,ttw property of informant, , >■■ jlir Bmith appeared for phuntill, milx Gould for .defendant. The information was laid under section 41 of th.o "Malicious Injury to Property Act." : , ' Edward Morris, sworn, dopoaed that he resided at Newman, audj lfnew wben roforrod to was shot, Hjb fenco was ereotod a chain and a half from the road line. Thero was no fence across the bottom of the liuo for a distanco of ono chain. Ho valued'.the pig that TO killed at £2, whilst the damage to' the other h 9 estimated at Was about vflW tho pigs' mm .shot. - Only knew what he was told. Had been previously complained to by defendant about the pigs, but had told him to come to him in a'civil manner. His next door neighbour never complained about his fowls or pigs. His houso and defandent's'were about six chains apart, Was not present when the pigs were shot. His son told him about thein, Gave 14s for the two. . Re-examined by Mr Smith : The 8 weeks' old when ho Bought them, and he could now get £2 for the one which was shot. Part oi defendant's ground had been fenced since the shooting. By the Bench: The fence was elected of birch saplings of four and five rails, but the bottom rails were so far from the ground that pigs could get undor. Was not on friendly tomß with defendant, who some time previously set his dogs on his sheep, Crosa-exatuined: Defendant on a former occasion threatened that if his (witness') pigs got in his garden he would shoot them.

Ittarles Dally, sworn, deposed that b»remembered the 17th Maroh, on which date he was working in Morns'garden. The pigs got into tho garden, and ho drovo them into the aore paddock. About three minutes after ho heard the report of & gun, when' ho went to Rubrich's The pigs were in. the plan produced. Saw the pigs after they were, shot iteg in rio. 1 enclosure. Saw defendant, but did not speak' to him. Did not know who shot the pigs.

Groas-examined: Arrived on the spot three minutes after bearing the shot, and found one pig dead and the other wounded. The one that was dead was close to the stye. Charles Morris deposed that he was son of plaintiff, and remembered 17th March. Was in the house dressing himself when bis brother came in and told him that defendant bad shot the pigs, Found tbo pigs ljiug closo to the stye. Defendant acknowledged having shot the pigs,

Cross-examined: The weight of tho dead pig would he about &nd the other would be less.

By Mr Gould: Did not carry the dead pig away. George Morris, sou of informant, deposed that he beard the Bhot fired orHR March, Rubrich called him anoiked him to take the pig away. Went at once, and saw the pig dead, close to the stye, ■ ''■

S"ross-examined: Defendant could have moved the pig.

By ,Mr Gould; Did not see the pig shot.- ' ' ':'

Mr Gould then addressed the Court at considerable length for the defence, the contention being that pigs were cattle, whilst the information set forth; in seotion 'll meant domestic animals,

A long argument ; then ensued between counsel as. to whether pigs were or were not domestic animals, the Bench deoiding to' reserve the point.

Cornelias J.Eubricb,sworn,deposed that on (fie 17th March whenleaving his house to go to tho back sections he saw the pigs in the enclosure close to the house, The enclosure was formed of a log fence, and where tbe logs did not meet he had driven in stakes and boarded it. It was inside this enclosure he shot the pigs under section 14, of the Impounding Act. The,area of the ground wherelhe pigs tfere'stiot was about the tenth of an wk>. which was under potatoes, 'A&amined: The height of the 0n Bft 6in, Saw where the pigs got out, but did not know where they trot in. When he shot the pig lie called the bo; Morris to kk it away.;' Thought he had to do this under the Impounding Act. The pigs had.beenanaunoyauceto him, and he had to keep his children at homo to look after them. Had complained previously about the pigs, which he valued at ISseaoh. ljid not, touch the pigs after shooting them, By Mr Smith: Did not see the pigs get in. If he-had he would have, driven them pui'jjefore they did any damage. From where he shot ,tho pig to where it dropped, was. about .three-quarters of a chain, Iyiziiio, Bubrjch, wife of defendant, deposed that she saw the pigs destroying tho garden on the 17th March. Didjiot .see ithem get .in, but saw them doing damage, On one occasion had driven plaintiffs pigs home to him. _ tßyMrSmith: Her.husband told lie? that the pigs were.iii the potatoes before he shot,them..'.'Did-not know hoslong they wore in tho' garden. Saw a hole in-the fenoe where the pigs got put.. ;Saw the pigs in-the garden before} •' r •;.'.'.'■ *»Thonias Parker, seltler.of Newmau, MBepbsed thathe'was a neighbour of ' Had, seen plaintiff's pigs on defendant's ground and had seen defendant; hunting them away from his sections, He was nearest neighbour to Morris. By Mr' Smith: Saw the pigs at defendant time ago., If he complained to .plaintiff ho would laugh and tell him to put up a fence. Josephine Rubric!),, daughter of defendant, saw her brother- drive plaintiff's pigs out of the garden twice. ■: By Mr Smith: Tho fence was about'as high as the table. There was a hole under the logs where the pigs could get in.' . This .was the whole of tho evidence. ftTho case was dismissed,, with ' •JSste, counsel's fee £\\ and expenses of ono witness, Bs.