*1t£$)mfl?WAWm~ATES> COURT, CAMBRIDGE. ♦_ _ F&tDA?.— (Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, ' . R.M., and two assessors.) ALLEGED WRONGFUL DKTKNTIO.V OF A HORSE.

Waikato Times, Volume XXII, Issue 1867, 24 June 1884, Page 3

*It£s)mfl?WAWm~ATES> COURT, CAMBRIDGE. ♦_ _ F&tDA?.— (Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, ' . R.M., and two assessors.) ALLEGED WRONGFUL DKTKNTIO.V OF A HORSE.

Osepu Tairi v. Ja*. Raxsfikt.o. Claim £76 15a. Mr Hay for plaintiff and MiO'Neill with Mr Dyer for defen lant This was a case aiising out of the alleged wrongful seizure of a horse, the property of Ouepu Tairi, by Major Gieen, SheiifF, the hoi se being afterwards sold by auction to the defendant on the 20th Feh ruary last. The plaintiff claimed the amount stated as the value of the horse, and damages alleged to have been sus tamed through losing the use of the horse. Mr Hay in opening the case, said it was brought by plaintiff against the defendant, Jas. llansfield, who described himself as a native. The case was bi ought for the iccovery of a black gelding, identified as being the lioise which was knocked down to Mr John Gnce, acting for the defendant Ransficld at an auction sale held at Cambiidge in February last, also for the ieco\eiy of certain damages It would he proved by various witnesses that this horse is, and always had been, the propeity of the plaintiff, and that she had ne\er paited with it in any way. The v.vlue of the horse would also be pio\ed. He would proceed to call his first witness. Onepu Tan i, the plaintiff, called, said she was the owner of the hoise in question. Witness then described the marks of identification. She had never parted with the hoise by selling it, or in any othet way. The hoi so had been put up to sale on the day named in the information, and had been knocked down to Jas Ransfk'ld. She asked Ransficld to give her the hoise as it was hois, but he declined, sajmg he would not give it toher unless she gave him C 27 for it. The hoise had boon in her possession since a foal, and she had ne\or patted with it. Valued the hoi»e at t!.")0 Was not^one of the peisons conceited in the Pukeknia cases. Hid authonsed Mi B'icklaiid to demand the hoise fioni Jas R.insfield. By Mr O'Neill: She was a muiied woman and Taui was hei husband They weienot manic 1 in the Euiopeau v,av She had had five childicn by Taui. —Mr O'Neill contended that it was very well foi her to say that she was, not man led. If she wcie mainul ewn accoiding to Maoii custom she was a mauied woman. His Woiship thought if witness said she was not man ltd it was foi Mr O'Neill to pio\o the contiaiy. Mr O'Neill contended that if witness sued for a debt she would cUim covetuie His Woiship leplied that she could not. Examination continued : The hi and before the couit was her biand, and only belonged to heiself and liei mothei Every bea^t branded ML 1 belonged eithci to her, or her mothei and fithei. Had never tned to sell or to swap the hoise piovious to the bale. No one had e\ei a a claim to the hoise but heiself. Had deputed Mi Bnckland to go to Jas. Rausfield and buy the hoise for hei Did not authorise Mr Bnckland to gi\ c Ranshcld £2G for the horse. Tairi, the '■husband ' of the pievions ■w itnes", called, stated that Onepu owned the hoise By one of the asscssois : Onepu after the sale had offeicd Ransfield €,"J0 foi the hoi so, hut lie would not take it. Other witnesses followed and collaborated the evidence of pro\ious witnesses iclatne to Onepu's ow net ship of the hoise. Mr J. B. Wamei deposed to having served Ransfield with a notice demand ing him to gi\e up the hoise which he lefnsed to do He said tho hoise was in his possession, but that it had belonged to Wakatutu. Mr Wallace, inteipreter, deposed to having sn ved a notice on the SheiifF to retui n the hoisi 1 . but he ufu-td to do so Onipu, lcuallcd, stated tliat she claimed tho return of the hoise and fi\e slnllmgs a day fiom the date of sal". Mr O'Neill foi the defence laised a r umber of objections whioh he considoied fatal to the ease. Tho horse churned bv the natives accoiding to then evidence was not the same as that bought foi Mr Ranshcld at the sale. Onepu's ow nut ship had not been pi o\ cd. Theie wa^ a consiilei \ble disci opancy in the e> ideiic.', and the evidence of Wakatutu was not to be lehod upon, as that native had alicady told lies when on oath in that couit. His Woiship thought that the desciepancies of evidence to his mind strengthened the ease. Had the natives told exactly the same stoiy thtoughout theie would have been some teason to doubt the evidence. His Worship refused to entertain the objections of Mi 0 Neill. Mr O'Neill pioceeded to call the evidence for the defence. James hansfield the defendent was called and deposed, to having bought the horse through Mr Gnce valued it at £27. The hoise had belonged to Wakatutu. Mr Buckland had come to him and ofl'eicd him i"26 foi the hoise saying that the old woman Meic Wakatutu wanted it, and told him to offer JC2G for it. Mr E. B Walker gave evidence to the effect that Wakatutu had told h:m the horse belonged to him. He alwajs understood that the hoise belonged to Wakatutu. Thornton Walker gave similar evidence. He had always undei stood that the horse belonged to Wakatutu Wakatutu had told him so. It was branded with Wakatutu's bi and. The brand befnie the couit was Wakatutu's brand and was also used by Wakatutu for bianding cattle. Ed « aid Fnpp stated that tho horse belonged to Wakatutu. He knew the hoise well. Edvvaid Lister Gieen, SheiifF of Auckland, deposed to having seized the hoise in question undei a wiit of sale. On the day of the sale the plaintiff did not come to him and piotest against the sile. He lead a notice tiom Onepu Tain, and another native demanding him to give up ccitain hoises, including the hoise in question, they being then pioperty. This closed the case for the defence. Before the Court retired to consider the decision, Mr Hay lemaiked that the defendant's case was illogical throughout. The learned counsel for the defence had statad that Wakatutu was a liar, and that his evidence was unreliable and at the same time lestecl their case upon what he had told their witnesses respecting the ownership of the horse. His Worship gave judgment in favour of plaintiff, the horse to be returned to Onepu Tairi, and the defendant to pay £23 10s damages, and £22 10s 6d costs. In the event of the horse not being given up, the defendant to pay plaintiff £30. (Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, KM.) THE ASSAULT OX THE SHERIFF. Onepu Tairi (wife of Tairi) and Rangirua (wife of Wirenm Tureti), of^Maungatautari, aboriginal native women, were charged on the information of Major Green with that they, within one month last past (to wit) on the thirtieth clay of May, 1884, at Cambridge, did unlawfully assault and beat the informant, he, the said informant, being then the Sheriff for the district of Auckland, and as such Sheriff acting in the execution of his duty, against the peace of our Lady the ' Queen, her Crown and dignity. , Constable Brennan applied to have the case dismissed. He would offer no evi'denee*' He would bring the case forward iv another form on a future occasion. jPlv Hay, who appeared for the accused, said that he had intended to apply to, have,, the information dismissed, on the ground that the charge laid against conjd pot be sustained as an >v indictable offence, and had no objection «-40-off«p*tO"ihe course pursued -by- the con- . arable.<:n> His -Worship formally dismissed the '' 'jtctfistidi' '*' vi ' . ft.*-. \