RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 901, 16 December 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Friday, December 15. (Before J. Giles, Esq., E.M.) WILFULLY DAMAGING PROPERTY. James Colvin was charged upon the information of Jamea Suisted and Eckerman Suisted with having wilfully and maliciously destroyed some fencing at the complainants' slaughter yard on the Bth inst. Mr Home appeared for the complainants, and Mr Pitt defended. Mr Home briefly stated the case, and called James Suisted, one of the complainants. Witness stated that his brother and he, trading as butchers under the firm of Suisted Bros., owned a slaughter yard at the North Spit, which they occupied under a business license, taken out on the 4th December. Formerly a butcher named William Johnston used the yard jointly with the complainants. Johnston sold his business to Jones and Colvin, but did not sell his interest in the slaughter yard. Jones and Colvin killed at the Orawaiti, and as far as witness knew, only once used the yard on the spit, after asking permission so to do from the complainants. Colvin never set up a right to use the yard, until the disturbance complained of took place. Witness told him that he used the yard on sufferance only, and that he had no right to it. Colvin replied that he had purchased Johnston's interest in the yard from Johnston, and that he would continue to slaughter in it. Colvin carried out the threat. On the night of the 7th instant the yard was secured, both gates being locked. The following morning witness found Colvin slaughtering in the yard. The gates had been forced open, and the chain produced was cut. Colvin had cattle in the yard. Witness said that he would teach the defendant to break open gate?. Colvin replied that he had given witness notice that it was his intention to do so. Colvin was slaughtering at the time. When Jones and Colvin dissolved, witness offered the latter to allow him to slaughter in the yard. Colvin had not attempted to slaughter there previous to that. Witness's brother was present during the conversation related. In Johnston's time it became necessary to move the yards owing to the encroachment of the sea. A portion of Johnston's yard and a portion of complainants' was used to construct the present yard, and Johnston and complainants used the yard joiutly. By Mr Pitt: There was some unpleasantness about the defendant supplying the Northern Light with meat. Our taking out a business license was

the result of that disturbance. We threatened that if ho continued to interfere with our old customers we should reduce prices and resort to " cutting." It was four o'clock in the morning when I went and found Colvin killing. I said first that I would turn the cattle out of the yard. I did hot do so, but I took away some tools used in slaughtering, which were our private property, and locked them up. I returned and found that Colvin still persisted in killing. Angry words ensued, and finally it came to blows, and so it ended. The notices produced, dated December 4, 6, and 7, were servod upon the defendant forbidding him the use of the yard, and raising the rent of the paddock for which he had been charged 5s per week. The letter produced was received t from Colvin in reply. I recollect a meeting of Jones, Colvin, Johnston, my brother and I, which took place shortly after Jones and Colvin purchased. Ido not recollect anything being said about the slaughter yard. I certainly did not say that I would have purchased it myself. I never sent to Jones or Colvin to repair the yard. Ebenezer Q-othard was called, but as his evidence had reference only to some message or transaction between Johnston and the complainants, it was objected to by the defendant's counsel, and the Court upheld the objection. Eckerman Suisted corroborated the previous testimony. He heard Jones say, when the subject of their (complainants) buying Johnston's share in the slaughter yard was discussed," you buy it, he has sold it to me." When Jones, left Colvin came to kill. He never said anything and laid no claim to Johnston's share in the slaughter yard, but went and killed there. Witness charged him a rental of 5s weekly for the share of paddock, but nothing for the yard. Their pigs fed exclusively at the yard, and they considered the offal from defandant's cattle exceeded in value any charge they were entitled to for rent. Mr Pitt shortly cross-examined the witness, eliciting that he had asked the defeudant to assist in repairing the yard, as he was equally interested in its good condition. He then addressed the Court, and contended that his Worship had no jurisdiction, as it had been clearly shown that the defendant had acted under the bona fide belief that he had a legal tide to the property jointly with complainants, and under that conviction had only acted so as to assert his rights.

Mr Horne replied, contending that if such were the case, that the defendant had acted uuder the belief that he had a right to the yard jointly with the complainants, he should have produced some evidence in support of that. If Johnston transferred his right to the defendant, it would have been an easy matter for him to have produced the transfer. Besides, if he had j»ny title it would have been competent for him to have established it in a legal and lawful way—not by violently breaking into a man's property. Such conduct, he took it, was deserving of censure, as very likely to have led to very serious results. There were death dealing implements lying in all directions at a place of that kind, and if some temperaments had been so situated as were the complainant and defendant, those weapons might have been called into use. It had been suggested that the defendant had a title, but nothing had been adduced to support such a view. His Worship said that he should not call upon counsel to reply. It was clear from the evidence of the complainants that there was a question of disputed title. It was not necessary that the title should be proved ; all that was required was that the Court should be of opinion that the destruction of property had taken place under a bona fide belief on the part of the defendant that he had a title to the property. Information dismissed. publican's licenses. A license was granted to Charles Davis for an accommodation house at Waimaugaroa, and to Hugh Hughes, for a house situate at Old Diggings, Upper Buller. CIVIL CASE. Emanuel v. M'Cue, claim for £2. Judgment for the plaintiff by default in the amount claimed and costs.