STEVENS V. PEDDLE.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 5331, 15 March 1879, Page 3

STEVENS V. PEDDLE.

Sm— The decision that was given in this case this mon ling does me, I consider, a gross injustice. The plaintift claimed a sheep as his, on thO ground that it bore his ear-mark, and tl * Magistrate decided in Mr Stevens' favo,?- But that should not have been sufficiv mfc, as it was quite easy for plaintiff to put his ear-mark on > top of mine, and so obliterate mine. . ..Looking for other evide* ™of ownership, *&re have the plaintiffs statement that he bought the sheep in qyießtaon of Mr Dolbel two years ago, and t>t it then had Mr Dolbel's mark-top of ear oft, and hole in remainder. Now, ihi ' sheep that Mr Stevens bought two year.* ago from Mr Dolbel had Mr Tiffen's earmark, and not Mr Dolbel's at all Mr Dolbt 1 bought the sheep from Mr Tiffen, and sol 4 them to Mr Stevens. So, if there was anything like Mr Dolbel's mark on the sheep m dispute it had nothing to do with the *ot purchased by Mr Stevens from Mr Dolbel two years ago. Besides, if this sheep was one of those bought two years ago as a «rown sheep, it would now show six Teeth, or a full or broken mouth ; whereas it haa, as I can prove— for I have bought t,he sheep back, and can produce it— four teeth just up. I mean by " just up,' that two of the four teeth have only lately grownup. On the 11th of October last the sheep had only two teeth, and since then the other two have grown up. Now, I leave it to the public to judge whether 1 have received justice in this matter.— l am, &c, S. W. P. Peddle. March 14, 1879.