RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.
ASHBURTON. -To-day. (Before Mr. Nugent Wood, R. M.) Drunk. —Michael Toppiu, charged with being drunk and disorderly, was discharged. Malicious Injury to Property.— Cornelius Fanning was charged with the malicious destruction of property to the value of L2 10s.; and also with using threatening language. P. Tisch, .Spread Eagle, said prisoner came to his phoe on Wednesday last. He behaved very civilly, and when he went away he got a bottle of whisky and a bottle of wine. He came back again next day, and als- behaved civilly. Next day, howevi -, ho came back, and, having no money, sked for a bottle to set him up. Ho was told to go to his work, but wouldn’t, and after that he kept loafing about, asking p:ople to shout. When remonstrated wit , he threw a bottle at witness’ head, and broke the bottle in a thousand pieces ac dust the wall. After that he threw stones, and acted in a vary threatening manner to witness. Some time after tiiis he got sober again, and expressed contrition for the conduct he had been guilty of. and made an apology, and promised to pa v for the damage he had done about the place. Gave him some more drink, but instead of going away be went round the house and sucked the bottle. Later on he; was coaxed away about a chain, but came back and was troublesome, and witness threw him down. When he got up he wen- and deliberately smashed seventeen panes of glass in the windows, and broke the latch of the door. He had spent L6O at Methven. Accused said Tisch had threatened to shoot him, and had hit him on the chest with a loaded whip. He wanted the case postponed for a week to bring witnesses to prove this. He had worked eleven years in this district, and was a respectable man, and to be called a loafer by a manlike Tisch was enough to put any man’s temper up. His Worship sentenced the man to one month’s imprisonment in Addington Gaol. His conduct had been very disgraceful, and the option of a fine would not be given. On the second charge, of using threatening language, prisoner was fined LI, or three days’ hard labor, in addition to the former sentence.
CIVIL CASES. Hughes v. Roberts. —Claim Lll 13s. 4d., for rent of a house. Defendant pled that he was charged for a month longer than he occupied the building. Plaintiff sa : d the terms of letting had been L2O a year, payable monthly. The house had been vacated without a month’s notice, and this was the month disputed. Defendant said he had given notice on the 28th of December to Messrs. Montgomery, in Christchurch, that he would leave at the end of January. Confessed to owing LlO but no more. Verdict for LlO. Grice v. Saunders.—Mr. Branson, for defendant, applied for a rehearing in this case on the ground that the number of sheep stated was incorrect, and that there was contributing negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The magistrate decided not to grant the rehearing ex parte, but would hear the application on Friday week, the other side to have notice, and no further proceedings to be taken in the meantime. Hoey v. M‘Hardy.—Claim LI. Plaintiff was a laboring man in defendant’s employ. Was engaged at LI a week with overtime. Worked three days, three hours and three-quarters overtime. Was hired by the week, and was discharged with a threat that if ho did not leave the ground a bobby would bo sent for. . , , Defendant said the plaintiff was engaged at the rate of LI a week, same as the other men. He did not suit—was no goou, in fact, and he was discharged. Was oh red the money ho had earned, but he would not have it, and said he wanted a week’s wages. Was not on the spree at thot-ne, but had been on the drunk, bui that was not the reason why I turned the ; oor devil away. His Worship said when a man vas engaged by the week he must be pair by the week. Verdict for 20s. and. costa. Meharry v. Baxter. Claim damages for trespass of sheep on plaint iffs land, inasmuch as bn the'24th of June l 1880, defendant had driven a mob of 500 sheep on to plaintifl s land at South 1
Rakaia, and said sheep had eaten and destroyed plaintiff's turnips and grass. Trespasses had been committed also in July and August. William Meharry, farmer, said that in June last ho was in occupation of land at Rakaia, for which his name was on the rating roll. On the 24th June last I was on the farm when a brother of the defendant brought between 500 and COO sheep. Some time before this Iliad seen defendant at Tattersall’s, in Christchurch, and asked him if ho wanted any turnips to buy. He said that be thought he could make arrangements with my mortgagee about those turnips. A week afterwards he turned his sheep onto the turnips. There wore forty-five acres of turnips, an average crop. I never consented to his turning the sheep on to the turnips. There were only defendant’s brother and myself present. Shortly after I turned the sheep off, and they wore put in again by defendant h mself. They were two or throe days o-i the plains before they were put in again. I turned the sheep off three times in all. The sheep were between five and six weeks on my land, and ate up all i;y turnips that wore any good. On the 24: 'i of June defendant’■ brother said the m rtgagee had given dm liberty to put hi sheep on the land. They had the run of the whole farm, and ate the grass and de nolished (he fences. The turnips were w >rth between 15s. and LI an acre, and the damage done to the fences could not be repaired for L 5. The damages claimed are fair. When the feed was all eat m the sheep went away. Never gave ; .y one liberty to lei my turnips, and never got a fraction from Baxter on accoun ;.
By Mr. O’Reilly—There’ never was an Acton .'.hoop on my land till Baxter’s sheep came aad broke down my fences. The land is ’nine subject to a mortgage. The only ti: le I actually saw B xter and the sheep ogether was on the 24th of June, but thi sheep were there f>r five or six weeks after that. I often turned them off. I did not turn the sheep off for five or six days because 1 thought Baxter had bought the turnips from the agent of the mortgagee. In December the agent of the mortgagee told me he was not aware I had any turnips. After the sheep had been on for a time the neighbors told me Baxter had not paid a penny. Baxter’s brother said an arrangement had been made for the turnips with the bank agent at Southbridge.
By Mr. Purnell —Had the sheep not ate the turnips I would certainly have got the benefit of the crop. Mrs. M. A. Meharry remembered the 24th of June last. Was on the farm that day when John Baxter brought some sheep of his brother’s to the farm. Could not say how long they were on the farm. Defendant came and told me to tell my husband not to turn the sheep off. They had been turned out. He said he had got permission from the Bank to put them in. Saw the sheep on the turnips, but could not swear to how long they wore there. William Morrow, farmer at Rakaia, deponed to seeing sheep bearing G. Baxter’s brand, on plaintiff’s turnips in the mon h of June last. Knew the Acton brand. Saw the sheep there at intervals of fully a week. The turnips looked well, at harvest time. Knew of turnips bringing 10s. an acre at Rakaia. 3d. a week was not too much to charge for grazing sheep if the feed were good. Cross-examined —Mohs of sheep with different brands on were there. Would estimate the whole number of Baxter’s sheep on Meharry’s land at from 400 to 500.
Robert Taylor gave evidence corroborative of plaintiff’s. For the defence, George Baxter deponed—That he had no understanding with plaintiff about sheep in June, July, or August. No claim for grazing had ever been made against him. Bought 250 sheep from Mr. Bluett on Aug. 17th, and drove them home. Took 210 from the Southbridge farm to the Rakaia one. On August 20 it was getting dusk, and witness could not get to his farm that night, so he put the sheep in an empty paddock on Meharry’s farm. The fences were all tumbled on Meharry’s land, and the station sheep were coming and going as they pleased. The farm was lying waste, and had done so all through the winter. Took the sheep away early in the morning. There wore turnips on the land, and all the sheep that had been on Meharry’s land during three months were those already mentioned, unless there might have been some mixed with the Actonflock. In October or so Staveley, the agent, gave him permission to put sheep on Meharry’s land if witness put up the fences. Put up some of them, and put 200 or 300 ewes on for a few weeks. Never heard of this claim till he got a summons.
By Mr. Purnell—Never got a letter from plaintilFs solicitor demanding this money. Never saw Stavely in June about Meharry’s land or turnips. Saw Morrow in June about buying some turnips, and did not remember saying he could get Meharry’s land for nothing, or had the run of his land. Did not know of his brother going with sheeptoMeharry’sland. His brother had a care over the sheep. Saw Mrs. Meharry in September or October. Did not think he could muster 400 sheep on his Rakaia farm. Told Mrs. Meharry that Staveley had told him he could put the sheep on, and would not deny that ho had asked her to tell her husband not to drive off the sheep. Staveley wanted witness to buy the land. The fences were all down when witnesses’ sheep came on the land. The bailiffs were on the land all harvest, and the cattle and horses ran on the turnips. The crop could not be very great after that. John Baxter, brother of defendant, remembered bringing a few sheep to Meharry’s land in January last. Did not think he brought any sheep before that. Could not remember if he d’d. John Carruthers—Was a farmer owning a section adjoining Meharry’s. There were sheep on Meharry’s section in June. They broke out of Mcharry’s into witness’s. The mob would be a thousand or so, and there might be one hundred or so of Baxter’s. From that time up till this date the fences have been down. They were first knocked down by Meharry’e cows, before the sheep came. Remembered the crop of turnips. They were young healthy turnips, and four or five head of cow cattle were amongst them before the sheep went in. Meharry’s sale took place in January or February, and the place has been neglected since. Any sheep had access to it. Morrow, re-called, swore to Baxter having laughed at him for asking 255. for turnips, when Baxter said he could got Meharry’s turnips for nothing. Counsel having addressed the bench, His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for L2 10s and costs—Gd. a sheep for 100. It was a mixed up sort of case, and the number of sheep had not been satisfactorily elicited. But the sheep had evidently been put there, and without Meharry’s permission.
Permanent link to this item
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume 2, Issue 269, 15 February 1881
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 2, Issue 269, 15 February 1881
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.