SESSIONS OF PEACE COURTS.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume 1, Issue 16, 9 January 1858, Page 5

SESSIONS OF PEACE COURTS.

All the cases at the Port having been disposed of, Mr. Dudley Ward, the Chairman of the Sessions Court, left Napier at two o'clock on Friday, Nov. 27, in order to hold a Court at Waipukurau on the 28 th, in conjunction with the Justices of the Peace for that District. Only one case appeared on the list ; but as the decision wa s considered of some importance in a pastoral District, we have obtained the following abridged report of the proceedings from a Correspondent who happened to be present. Before C. Dudley Ward Esq.., Chairman, and Capt. Newman. Curling v. Limpus. E. Spencer Curling Esq., the plaintiff in this case, claimed from the Defendant the sum of 20s. damages, for trespasses committed by the Defendant on his Run. On the case being fully gone into, it appeared clearly that great and repeated disturbances had been caused on Mr. Curling's run by the Defendant's hunting pigs there, — that Mr. Curling had, in fact, lost the use of a considerable portion of his land through the constant presence on it of the Defendant and his dogs, — that a considerable number of his (Mr. Curling's) sheep were missing, — and that he had been forced to incur considerable expense in extra shepherding. Under these circumstances judgment was given for the plaintiff, for the amount claimed, with costs. In announcing the decision of the Bench, Mr. Ward stated that he was glad to have the opportunity of correcting an erroneous opinion apparently prevalent in this District : — viz., that any person had a perfect right to trespass on, or hunt over, any run he pleased, in defiance of the holder. Every sheepfarmer holding his run from the Government was for certain purposes lessee of that lnnd over which his run extended. He paid a certain rent to the Government for (he use of the land, and the law would protect him against any violation of the rights conferred in consideration of such payment. He (Mr. Ward) did not say that the runholder had a right to refuse any man he pleased permission to traverse his run. On this point no dispute had arisen, or was likely to arise. But there could be no question that the runholder had a right to appeal to the law for protection against any person whose proceedings, as in the present instance, clearly prevented and interfered with the due enjoyment of the privileges acquired by virtue of his agreement with the Government, — such as the quiet depasturing on his run of his sheep and cattle. He regretted that the damages laid by Mr. Curling were merely nominal, as the Court was thereby prevented from further marking in the judgment to be given a due sense of the injury inflicted in the present case, — damages to ten times the amount claimed having been clearly proved. He trusted, however, that when the decision of the Court became known through the District, it would have a salutary effect in repressing future offences of this description. Judgment would be given for the plaintiff, with costs. The Court then rose.