(Before C. A. Wray, Esq., S.M.) BREACH OP PROHIBITION ORDER. Erederiok Mnsohamp, a you man charged with _ having been found on the licensed Premises known as the Canterbury H ote,Methve H ,and also at the Methven Hotel, while a prohibition order was m force V Oonatable Shoppard R ay« evidence h 3 to the oflence; accused had taken out the J3»B Worship inflicted afineof2G3and A FOUNDING CASE. F-o?ic I Si^'P" 8"' '«tag imprandnd. Ac r t%&g&gl&***>*r wa ß de. William Morse, farmer; gave evidence that accused's cattle broke into certain land ana injured a roofc crop m which witness ftaa an interest. Witness proceeded to drive the cattle to the pound, when accused came np and offered him a sum ia payment or damages to release the cattle. Witness refusing to accept the offer, accused drove off the cattle. Cross-examined by Mr Purnell—Witness said that there was no gap m the fence, the cattle got through the wires. The cattle were on the paddock about five minutes, and the damage done whs trifling. Did not ask accused for £5. His desire was to impound the cattle to keep them off the road. Was at one time employed by defendant; . did not think lie was dismissed by defendant; had once threatened to poison defendant's ducks, which got on to his land. Annie Green corroborated William Morse's evidence aa to the rescue of the cattle. Cross-examined, she said the wire iv the fence was a little slack and the cattle got into the paddock fairly easily. W. R. Anderson, farmer, said that he ■was the owner of the root crop damaged by defendant's cnttle. He had asked Morse to keep an eye on the crop, but had not authorised him to impound cattle found thereon. The damage done was tf no importance. The defendant, who elected to give evidence, said he kept a dairy factory at Flemington, and a farm, throe-quarters of a mile trom the factory. He drove his cows from the farm to the dairy and back several times a week. On the 13th April, two or three of the cows strayed on to Mr Anderson's property, he having left them on the road about seven minutes, while he went to get his daughter to drive them. On returning he found Morse driving the cattle to the pound. Morse demanded £5 damages. Defendant offered to pay a fair amount for damage?, to be assessed by any two independent persons. Morse refused this offer. Defendant then drove the cows i off. The paddock into which the cattle strayed was not properly fenced. Morse was at one time m defendant's employ, and was dismissed under unpleasant circumstances. Mr Purnell contended that as all the cows did not stray on to the property, the seizure was illegal. In face of his client's offer to pay damages, Morse had no right to attempt to impound the cattle. His Worship said that there was no doubt Morse had a right to take some of the cattle to the pound, and defendant should not have attempted to rescue them. However, as the case was rather a mixed one, and as only 4 out of 11 or 12 cattle were trespassing, he would dismiss the case. FAILING TO DESTROY BABBITS. J D. F. Knight, farmer, Rangitata, for whom Mr Aciand appeared, was charged with failing to destroy rabbits on his property. He pleaded not guilty. 0. W. Brannigan, Agent for the Government Stock Department, gave evidence as to the offence. He had recently inspected defendant's property, and found several rabbits thereon. Defendant, when interviewed, admitted the existence of tho rabbits. Witness then served a notica to destroy rabbits on defendant, On paying a second visit about a month later he found the rabbit 3 very numerous. Defendant had procured poison from the Department, tout an employe of defendant informed witness the poison had not been laid. Defendant had not, to witness's knowledge, taken any reasonable steps to destroy rabbits. Cross-examined by Mr Aciand— Did not know that it was the custom to wait till May before laying poison for rabbits. Poison was successful at any time of the year if properly carried out. R. Fullarton, Government Stock Inspector, gave evidence m support of the prosecution. The defendant, m the witness box, said that rabbit shooting went on, on his property, during a great portion of the year. It was best to lay poison at the beginning of winter, or of spring. The poison obtained from the Stock Department by him had been laid. As the result of shooting, the rabbits on hie property had greatly decreased m number. S, C. Pilbrow, manager of the defendant's property, E. Jackman, A. Lyons, and W. Pitbey, corroborated this evidence His Worship reserved his decision till the evidence m a similar case againtt John Withell, of Ealing, was heard. John Withel], farmer. Ealing, was charged with failing to destroy rabbits on his property. The evidence for the prosecution was similar to that m the previous case, the Stock Department alleging that defendant had disregarded notice to destroy rabbits. The defendant, for whom Mr Aciand appeared, pleaded " not guilty," and stated that he had not yet received legal possession of the land m respect of which the charge was brought. He was negotiating for the purchase of the leasehold of the land, but the transfer had not been signod. The land was a railway reserve, and the rent was paid by Messrs Cadwallader Bros?., the present holders of the lease. Notwithstanding this, defendant had taken steps to destroy rabbits on the property. In reply to thif, the Stock Department representatives alleged that defendant had been grazing sheep on the land for some two or three months, and receiving payment thereon, and as he was deriving benefit from the land, he was liable m the present action. The land was not fenced, and there was nothing to keep the sheep off. After hearing further evidence, Hi* Worship said that m the case against Mr Withell, the circumstances were not sufficient to warrant a conviction, and the case would be dismissed. In the case against Mr Knight, he must accept the evidence of the Stock Department's officials as to the increase of rabbits, j and he must refuse to believe that proper steps had been taken to destroy the rabbits, i Defendant would be fined £5 and costs. OUSTANDING BATES. Ashburton County Council (Mr Parnell) v. Alexander Spring, Claim for 9s 2d, outstanding rates. Judgment for plaintiff by default. CIVIL CASES. Alfred Bray v. John Stribling, claim for possession of a pair of wading boots. Plaintiff alleged that the boots m question were Mb property, and produoed receipt for the amount paid for them. Defendant at present had possession of the " v/adeis." and had advertised them for sale. He oalled on defendant, who refused to give them to him. Defendant was lent the " waders" by a man named McNichol, who borrowed them from plaintiff. H, A. Flower gave corroborative evidence. Defendant alleged that Mr Nichol owed him money, and that he had no means of ascertaining if the " waders " were really plaintiff's property. He would be satisfied if the waders were identified by Mr Orr, who sold the waders to plaintiff. His Worship made an order for the return of the waders provided they were identified by Mr Orr. Clark (Mr Buchanan) v. Adams, claim for £26 10s.— Judgment for plaintiff by default. OLD AGE PENSIONS. Sixteen pensions were renewed, and two applications adjourned for further enquiries. One pensioner (female) was cautioned severely for giving an incorrect statement an to her husband 3 earnings.
Permanent link to this item
Ashburton Guardian, Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXII, Issue 6562, 5 May 1905
MAGISTERIAL. Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXII, Issue 6562, 5 May 1905
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.