ONEHUNGA R M COURT. [Before R. C. Barstow, Esq., R.M., and J. UNKNOWN

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXXII, Issue 5724, 27 January 1876, Page 3

ONEHUNGA R M COURT. [Before R. C. Barstow, Esq., R.M., and J. UNKNOWN

Alleged Cvtill Silviiso — J<uucs dims, of Maugere, was charged by Joseph Hastie, of Mangere, with feloniously taking one heifer worth £i, and one ticketed chain \alue lls. — Mr. Cottar appeared for defendant. —Joseph Hastie, before giving his evidence objected to Mr. Robertson bitting on the bench, but the objection being piid no attention to, he thui deposed: I .im a farinnr it Mi/igeie, and ha\e c.ittle on the inn. One of my childien informed me a heifei was missing. It was one on which the langei had lately placed a tu-ki ted chain. I went with Joseph Young to defendant's faun ; I siw him, and said I am told you have a heifer belonging to me. His answer was, "theie is one in my paddock that jour son claim-., but it is oue of 12 I bought at Buckland's a shoit time ago." Defend mt pointed out to me the paddock in which the heifer wa3. I went down iud lecognised her. I got her out of the paddock, with Young's assistance, into the paddock where defendant was working. I said the heifei was mine, I 1 eared her and her mothei. I had to do with cattle for twenty years, and never made a mistake. He siid it could not be mine, as he had bought her at IJuckhnd's. He lefusud to let mo take her away. I aftei wauls laid an information and obtained a seaich wan ant. I watched nil night feanng defendant might make away with the heifei On Sunday moiuing I went with Constable Giecne who took possession of the heifei. — To Mi. Cottu : I believe I had 18 boast-, on the Mangeie mn at this time. I took out 20 licenses. At one time I used to brand my cittle for oilier people's information. I don't now. Defendant did not in any way conceal the "beast, oi oifi-r any obstruction, evcept to ray taking it away. — The Bench heie interfered wanting to know where was the felony ? Prosecutor, by Ins ow n evidence showed that it was a case only of disputed identity. — The case was dismissed without pioeeedmg any further,' his "Woiship observing tint pioajcitoi *> statement when applving for the wuiiut w is ■veiy diffeient fiom his pieoout evidence. --[Own couespondent.]