DRURY. {FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIII, Issue 3017, 28 March 1867, Page 5

DRURY. {FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

March 27. XHB -following cases came oii for hearing' before iCharleiMellsopi Esq., R.M., at the -Resident Magistrate'i Court, Papakur», ; - on Monday, the 25 th instant:— - t( " o aSOMIS NORBIS ,Y. <THOMA£ HALLAMORE. 1 .Thii was an information sworn by 'the constable it Pokeno, churgmg the defendant for that he' the (laid .Thomas Hftllamore, not being duly licensed, and in breach of the 3rd and 38th clauses of the' Licensing Abt, 1863, did, onthe 11th March, in his house, tsituate at Pokeno, sell to one Joseph Fordhatn, of Tuakau, one bottle of ale for the sum of 2s. 6d: ■ :I!he plaintiff and defendant appeared. Defendant pleaded not guilty ; but Joseph Fordhatn, the principal witness, not being in attendance, although duly summoned,*' warrant for 1 his apprehension ''was ■ directed to be issued; and , ' < Tho oase was adjourned to nexb OoUrt-day at < JDrury, ' ■ fl '/" • ' j

i Civn. CAfifts. - " DAVIDSON iTI SMITtf. J This was a claim' r for £&,, damage sustained by bush fires. ! " ,: „ ! ' . Plaintiff and defendant appeared, the"Wttpr being represented by'Mr k Keetley us nis'soli^itpr. ' . J ' - ■ Henry Bull was sWorn,' and stated tM bn'the day of the fire he was loading posts and rails near plaintiff's house, about half-past 9 o'clock, when he saw fire on both sides of the road near his house; that he then went to plaintiff's, house, to which the fire was approaobing.' 'In reply to plaintiff, the •witness stated that he saw Mrs. Davidson on the day of the fire; and that he (the plaintiff) dame to thehouse, and laid he was afraid the fire had come from Clarks bush', and that he assisted plaintiff in' removing things from his house, as he thought thevdhouße was in danger from the fire. In reply toMr. Keetley, thejwitness said: The first time J-went down the road there was no fire. The ■eoond time there was fire on both side's of the way. IsaW no fire 1 in Clark Smith's that day. ■•• George Livington, dworri and' examined by plaintiff : I lire in Kirikiri, and am a gardener. On the 7th FebrnAry last there was a fire near your plaoe. I saw you that day near Olark^ Smith's, and I heard you say to Mrs. Smith that you saw where the fire arose from. -I saw Clark Smith with a ban in his hand putting out a log burning on his own place. I saw fire on s Smith's.,bush that day near his own. house. The body, of-the fire was going towards Coults's bush. , . To Mr., Keetley : I saw fire burning on both sides of the road, but I did not look, to see whether there was any connection betw.een.thefire on Clark .Smith's and the fire on the road. > ' Jane Brisbane, a settler's wife at Kirikiri, was , sworn and examiped, 1 but her evidence did not tend to show that the fire originated in defendant's bu«h. James Coults, sworn': lam a settler at Kirikiri. About" five o'clock on, the evening of the 7ih February last, the fire in question was burning on my bush on both sides of the .road, and also in 1 Smith's bush. Smith, the defendant, said, in answer to, Payidson, the he did not think that hp (defendant) | had set fire to it; Smith andiris wife gate Davidson abusive language, and said'he and his. farm' ! might go to . • % To Mr. Keetley: I could not say how the fire originated. Jt spread from Livington'a bush towards i the road. ! , Charles Davidson, the plaintiff, deposed: On the ' 7th February last I left my house about 11 o'clock 'in..the morning. There was no fire in my place then. '.- A short time after I came home, and lasr a fire.joshing up the road towards my place.. Mr: 'lJull was. there when I came, back, and advised me !not to gp down to the road.. I rushed through, and .saw Mrs. Smith standing opposite to her own house. 'She said she knew nothing about the fire, but that her husband was burning down below the house. X' saw Smith a little below, with a pitcher.o£ watery ■ putting out fire. .. Ha refused to speak to me. The'i wind was blowing,up the road at the time. >I removed 6ome Backs from my, place, aisirited.by my wife and, Mrs, Bull. I found fully six chains of fencing and a chain and a h»lf of. two rail fence destroyed. Part of the logs.of wood I was, using forfirewood was also destroyed. ' • • .This closed the plaintiff's cade. v 1 There were five witnesses examined -for the de-. fence, th.c first of whom, John Brown, deposed as follows: I am a labonrer, iresiding at Kirikiri I_jMscollect about the 7th of (February last that the defendant fired his bush about 3 o'clock in the afternoon. There is no connection {between the fire on the* road And' that in Livingston's bush, I examined it carefully. I haye I'seen1 'seen no trace of.fire from Smith* bush" to the road. The fire if it went through Livingston's would have to go ithrough furze. Smith's fence is 1 not burnt. -About il o'clock on the same day I saw a stump burning at the end of Davidsons bush. I went up and saw the-fire-going from Davidsons bushtoCoults'B. 'I do not think'there was any fire in Smith's bush at that time. The wind was blowing down the road from Davidsons to Smith's. > ' I .Toaplaintaff: .Smith's burning is about five or six yards frdm- Livingston's bush.' I saw Livingston's bush on fire after yours wa* on fire. There was no fire in the road about 1 o'clock.-;- The wind at that time was blowing from Davidsons towards Smith's. I came up the road about 4 o'clock, and I saw the fire coming from your buih into Coults's. Trecollect'a. large rimu i| felled near Smith's. If was on fire when 1 came back. | John Hamilton, Archibald Livingston, Alexander 1 McNeill, and Bobert Erskine, having severally been examined on behalf of the defendant, and their evidence tending to prove that the fire did-not originate in the defendant's busb, the caße was dismissed-with costs of Court, including £1 ls.-,: solicitor's fee. . , , i

1 i OOT/LTS Y. SMITH I' i i This was a claim for £9 against the same 'defen-- [ dant, for alleged damage to fencing and felled bush 1; ! Mr. Keetley appeared for the defendant.'' 'L j' ' The plaiHtiff appeared, and consented to a dis« imiwal, with ooits, as iv the former otket' 1 DismiMed coordingly, with ooits,