DISTRICT COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3633, 8 October 1890, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

MASTERTON-TUESDAY. j (Beta His Honor District Judge ! Robinson,) I MARTIN Y, WELCH, j Albert Martin, continuing his i evidenco, said lie had chained his : boundary with Mr Blatcbford. In , the two sections there was 126 acres, Originally the sections were bounded by the river bed, but the river had changed its course and cut through the land leaving 30 or 40 acres unfenced, This could not be fenced in consequence of the shifting of the river, No notice wag given him that bis land was going to be poisoned, otherwise be could have removed the sheep. He valued the fifty sheep poisoned at 12s each, There were very few rabbits on his property, and he bad not received notice to poison since 1882, ' By Mr Bunny: The river was continually changing its course, and hi 3 sheep strayed along the river bed, going on Government and private ■ property. , A, J, Rawson, surveyor, gave evidence as to the boundaries of plaintiff's property. John Blatohford corroborated the i evidenoe of plaintiff, stating that he had complained to Welch on one , occasion of laying poison without , giving him notice. , Henry Welch, defendant, stated 1 that he had laid poisoned grain i along the Ruamahunga river about ! June 21st, J ByMrPownall: The river bed ( had been poisoned for over three 1 years under a contract to Inspector 1 Drummoud. The river separated , the place he poisoned from Martin's t property. There were no sheep on > the river bed at the time. Ee did ' not remember layiug poison on Martin'B property, t Inspector Drummond deposed that » the poison had been laid by his 3 authority. It was not necessary to 3 give notice when poison was laid. 1 John and William Douglas, who I woro poisoning with Welch, deposed j that they saw no sheep on tho river I bed when tho poison was being laid. 3 Albert Welch, sworn, stated that 3 Martin told him ho had taken all the ' wool off tho poisoned sheep. Ho j had seen most of tho sheep on Crown „ Lauds, He valued tho sheep which 1 were poisoned at 8s or 9s each, I WEDNESDAY. Inspector Drummond, recalled, I stated that he saw the sheep which | wero poisoned, and tho nearest to i. where the poison was laid was forty i chains away. The sheep had been II plucked. Believed there was only an j eighth of an acre of plaintiff's land 5 . poisoned. I J. W. Smith, sub-Inspeotor of the H Rabbit Department, deposed that I, he know Martin's property. On May ij 14th ho went to. see if it was neces- "» sary to poison the Ruamahunga river °. bed. He found thst the most 0 efficient steps to bo taken would be j| poisoning, and reported to this effect, it On the day tbp land was siuiyeyedhe saw 'a number of sheep oi} the river bed. The value of tho sheep at the ' time of poisoning would be eight or.' \ nine shillings, II Oharlos Gayfov, who was present it on the property with Inspector Drmn. a mond, corroborated the evidence of j 8 the las] wjtness, He valued the '° sheep at about eight shillings, l ' This was the case for'the de r \ fence, -

Mr Blatcbford, re-called by Mr Pownall, stated tii'at he' valued the sheep for his own uso at 12s. He placed a higher value on those poisoned than those which were on Martlii's' property : to September, because they were ewes in lamb. Mr Bunny submitted' "that .there wore pp 'i#'nes to plate before a jury, Thp oaso'ljad nqt beejj siisbncqV ' Mr f ow'nall'rppliea' at'consjuerablo' lerigtlj..'. ' ' '"...' ' "■s% if lengthly avguuient, in wliicd" SrJfiinijy 'ip!!Jistj(ji} 'thi(t " -•« "ot'ous fw jm-yfe the case w. '"*'*-■ I Gouvt adjourned till 2 o cwv«,