R. M. COURT, BALCLUTHA.

Clutha Leader, Volume XX, Issue 1025, 16 March 1894, Page 5

R. M. COURT, BALCLUTHA.

Wednesday, Mahch 14

(Before It. S. Hawkins, Esq., E.M.) t->

William Ottoway, ancl two Maories named Aj.hebt Fohtscde and Moses Simon were charged on the information of William G. Morris, ranger, with, on 21st February 1894, having a trout illegally in their possession. The defendants were further charged with, at the same time and place, having in their possession two flounders under 9in. — Mr D. Stewart prosecuted and Mr J. E. Thornton defended. After considerable argument, William Ottoway was fined L 3 ancl costs Ll 4s, and the other two 5s each and 6s each costs. — The second charge was withdrawn.

Margahet Black v. Rose M'Lean. — Claim L 2 7s 6d, dressmaking done. — Defendant did ; not appear. — Judgment for amount claimed,/ with costs 7s. -

Dabinett & Young v. Sharp & Gordon. — Claim L 5 7s, goods supplied to defendant's two men. — Mr D. Stewart appeared for plaintiffs.

George Dabinett stated that goods were supplied to defendants' men on the strength of an order to do so signed by the defendants. The order was never revoked. The accounts for goods supplied in the month of September — the month previous to that which was now sued for — was paid by the defendants. He continusd to supply goods to the men during October and to the sth November. In the first week of November he rendered the account for October, but Sharp then said he would have to look to the men for payment as they had left. Asked b> His Worship whether he had any questions to ask, the defendant Gordon saicl no, that he wished simply to tell his own story of the affair. On being sworn he said that on September 24, 1891, he met. Mr Dabinett ancl directed him to send in the account and they would pay it. He told Mr Dabinett that the two men, Wright and Clark, had left. After that the account, for September (produced) was sent to witness and paid. When he got the next account — the one now sued for — he went to Dabinett and Young's store and saicl he was sorry the men had left without paying, but that he would try and give them their adcliesses. To Mr Stewart : It was after the account was rendered that he said he was not responsible.

To the bench : The men left his employment on the 24th September. He met Mr Dabinett as he was coming back after dismissing them, Mr Dabineit (re-called) said that a week after the conversation he supplied goods to the amount of Ll 5s lOd, which had been paid in the September account. Robert Peter Sharp said the contract with Paterson to clear the bush was made on September 24, and after that the other two men did not work for them.

To Mr Stewart : The two men continued working on the ground but at a different place. Paterson was the only man in the contract, but there were four of them, including Wright and Clark, working at it. His Worship was of opinion that notice was given to terminate the order. Judgment for defendants.

Robert Allan v. R. Dewar, — Claim LlO, damages for assault. — Mr J. R. Thornton for plaintiff, and Mr D. Stewart for defendant. Plaintiff, in his evidence, said that he went to Mr Dewar's for a steer of his that strayed there. Mr Dewar told him he should not come on his property without informing him. Witness replied he was not stealing the steer. Dewar wanted 2s Gd- a day damage for eight days, but witness refused to give that and offered Gd. Dewar called him a pighead, and he replied " You are a pighead too." Dewar then challenged him to fight, but witness refused at first, and afterwards told him to come on then, but. again he said he would not strike an old man. Dewar then took a piece of wood witness was carrying and hit him twice over the head and once on # the arm with it, breaking the stick. His arm was bad for a week, and his head for two or three clays. To Mr Stewart : He was not prevented from/ working through the. blows. It was before he mentioned cattle-stealing that Dewar struck him, After he got the blow he never

said a word to Dewar, but went home. (Wit ness subsequently contradicted himself on this point.) He had known _Dewar four or five years as a very qiiiet man, aiid was surprised to see him get in such a fluster that day.

James Allan saw two wounds on his son's head after he came from Dewar's.

Alex. M'Kenzie heard Dewar say, " If you had not been so pigheaded you would have got that beast .out," ancl Allan replied he had not far to go for a mate.' Dewar then said, " Don't think I'm afraid of you, Bob." Allan said " Come on." Dewar went over to Allan, who had a stick in his hand and hiscoat partly off, but who then said' he would not strike an old man. Dewar then took the stick from Allan aad hit him once or twice, but witness saw no blood. Before Dewar struck Allan the lattei' said it would be a case of cattle-stealing. He saw. the lump on Allan's head in the afternoon, but it was" a very small one. ' :

To Mr Stewart: ..The stick was a rotten one. He thought Allan insinuated that Dewar meant to stick to the steer. Allan was often in i-oays, and 'used pretty strong language at times. Dewar was a very quiet man.

To Mr Thornton: He. fancied Dewar was a bit raised in temper that clay. David Dewar, the defendant, said "that Allan was running- over his place for an hour and half about half-past 7 in the morning. Witness, said to Allan that if the beast was his that the least he could have done was to tell him. Allan got -the beast away but it came back, and witness said to him, " You might have got it away quietly if you had not been so pigheaded." Allan replied he had not far to go for a mate. Some further words passed, and eventually he accepted Allan's challenge and went over to him, took the stick from him and hit him. - Allan lay down and sang out to M'Kenzie, "You witness this ; this is just what I wanted." To Mr Thornton : ,'He was not roused when he met Allan first.

David Dewar and Francis Dewar gave -evidence in support of defendant's evidence. His Worship said it was evident that plaintiff used provoking language, but that was not a reason for defendant taking the law in his own hands. Judgment for Ll, and costs L 2 13s 3d.

R. Dewar v. B. Allan. — Claim LlO damages done by defendant's steer. — Mr D. Stewart for plainiiff, and Mr J. B. Thornton for defendant.

Plaintiff detailed damages done to hay, garden, fence, ancl other cattle, all of which he assessed at LlO.

To Mr Thornton : He first made his claim on Friday last. He first knew the steer belonged' to Allan the day he came for it.

To His Worship : He made no mention of damage to Allan at the time, nor did he clo anything to stop Allan dogging and knocking the cattle about. The loss on a heifer, which slipped calf through being dogged about, he valued at L 2.

Francis Dewar ancl David Dewar gave evidence as to the damage clone by Allan's Steer.

R. Allan, defendant, denied that he unnecessarily hunted the cattle about, and did not clog Dewar's cattle at all.

James Allan said when his son took the steer away Dewar claimed 2s 6d a day for eight days.

R. Dewar, recalled in reply to His Worship, said he could not see Allan all the time from the byre where he Avas milking. There was over 100 acres in the paddock.

His Worship said he would only allow in respect of damage done to the heifer. It was evident that hacl Allan not proceeded against Dewar the latter would have not taken the present proceedings. „- And if people made themselves disagreeable to their neighbours they could not complain if their neighbours retaliated. — Judgment for Ll 155,- and costs 12s.