RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT—-NEWCASTLE (Before W. N. Searancke, Esq., R M.)

Waikato Times, Volume VII, Issue 401, 8 December 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT— -NEWCASTLE (Before W. N. Searancke, Esq., R M.)

CATTLE STEALING. ITapeta, an aboriginal native, was charged on the information of Richard John Cowderoy, of Tunaeka creok, with wilfully and feloniously stealing, taking, and carrying away one heifer and one calf, of the value of £G, the property of the aforesaid John Cowderoy. No evidence was offered for the prosecution, and the prisoner was discharged.

THOSE RAN'GAEIRI PIGS AGAIN. GERRAND Y. SHIRLEY. This was an action brought to recover the sum of £2, damage alleged to have been done by Defendant's pigs to plaintiff's garden at Rangiriri, on the 2'lth day of November last. The litigants are neighbours, and it seems that Mr Shirley's pigs are in the habit of being let out on the run at times. They sometimes trespass upon Mr Gerrancl's premises, and, as stated by plaintiff, do considerable mischief. On the 24th they found their way into the potatoes of the plaintiff, and inflcted damage thereon. The Plaintiff shot some of them, end then commenced the present action. Mr Kissling appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Whitaker for the defendant, Mr Kissling called James Shirley, who said : lam an owner of pigs. On 24th November I owned from six to nine pigs. The pigs always sleep in my shed, and have the run of the place in the day time. Gerrand came to me on the 24th to complain of some pigs having been in his garden during the night, and caused him damage. I don't know whose pigs they were. About eleven o'clock he came to draw my attention to my pigs being in the garden. My pigs had been in Mr Gerrand's garden on more than one occasion. I know the pigs that did the damage were not my pigs. It had been raining the greater part of the night. Saw my own pigs at eight in the morning, they were scon at twelve, and at tour the same night they were asleep in the shed. They had not been ou,t during the night or they would have been dirty or muddy. It had been laining hard, t believe rther persons keep pigs in the neighbourhood. — Gerrand : I recollect the morning of the 24th of November. Some pigs were in my garden. My premises are fenced in; fenced with a ditch and bank with whitethorn on top. When it comes near the house there is a ditch and rails, and a fourbarred slip-panel. My premises were securely fenced. About half-past one I got up and drove the pigs out of my garden. I shot at the pigs. There were six pigs. They were Shirley's pigs. Shirley claimed them as his pigs when I shot at them later in the day. I saw the pigs lying under Shirley's shed after daylight. The gate was open. I estimate the damages at £2. I have pumpkins, cabbages, potatoes, &c, in my garden. They rooted several of them xip. I gave Shirley a bill and asked him to pay it, and he said, " No, he would not." Cross-examined : I saw the pigs for the first time *just befiwe I shot at them. I was on the look-out for them. I was 10 yards off them when I fired. Mr Gall deposed : I saw Gerrand's garden on the 24th. It had been rooted by pigs. The crop of potatoes was entirely destroyed. I estimate the d.un.igs at £2. For the defence, Mr Shirley deposed : That he saw his pigs safely housed on the night of the 23rd. That he learned in the morning that they had been in Gerrand's garden. He went at once and examined them. There were no signs of dirt upon their snouts nor on any part of their body, as there must have been had they been rooting. There was not the slightest sign of blood upon them as though they had been shot at. He was sure the pigs in Gerrancl's garden were not his pigs. Thero had been several disputes about his pigs before with Gerrand. The whole thing arose on account of Gerrand leaving his slip-panel incessantly open. Mr John Harding said: That he knew both parties to the suit. He also knew Gerrand's premises. They were surrounded by a fence, and there was a slip-panel. Thisjatter was more often open than closed, and there was nearly always access to the garden for any animal that might be about. _ After lengthy addresses by the Counc.il on either side the Court adjourned, and after resuming its sitting, gave judgment for the plaintiff for £2, and costs, £G 13s Cd. SHIRLEY Y. GERRAND. Claim £10 damages for killing and maiming four pigs, the property of the plaintiff. The evidence in this cas>e was mainly the same as in the former one. The whole question was whether, under the Protectien to Gardens Act, a legal fence existed round Mr Gerrand's garden. After several persons had been called to give evidence as to the state of the fence in question, and both Counsel had addressed the Court, judgment passed for defendant, costs £2 13s 6d. These cases elicited some useful hints to the owners of pigs which will be found referred to in another column. This concluded the business.