GANE V. TOCKER.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume VIII, Issue 1355, 10 July 1886, Page 4

GANE V. TOCKER.

To the Editor of the Star. Sib,— ln your report of the above cases your reporter has failed to convey |o the , public my position ; I only addressed the Benoh on the first case, viz., as to Tocker using insulting language at the pound gate, bat Mr. Hutchison, for defendant, addressed the whole of the cases at once, before I bad the opportunity to explain my two other charges against Tocker, and including Tocker v. Gane. That, no doubt, ' accounts for the report being somewhat mixed. My statement was that at any time hones or cattle were trespassing on my land, instead of driving them on to the road for Tocker to take to tbe pound,

I drove. them away over tho railway crossingi' on to -the land in my occupation. As I stated on "Wednesday, it was saving Mr. Tocker the trouble. Your report omitted to give my version of Tocker's charge of rescuing, whicL was as follows : I saw a Horse (Mibb Emmerton's) about a couple of yards on the side of the road, adjoining land in my occupation, and another horse (unknown) about tbe same .distance from the side of the road on my land^ I had sent one of my lads with a whip to drive the horse off the road before I heard Tocker's dog barking, driving cattle to the pound. On again looking down the road, I noticed that it was Emmerton's horse, which was in the habit of running with mine whenever it has the chance. It was quite likely my horses would be in the neighborhood, and, my lad being on foot, I deoided to get on a horse I had tethen d on my land, and see that in the event of Tocker taking Emmet tou'6 hoise, mine did not follow him. On my gettin},' to the corner of the bush, I saw four horses including two of mine, grazing, which I, of course prevented goiug on to the road. Tocker left the catlle, aud went buck up the road to fetch a hoise of mine. Ou the court giving judgment, if my name had been mentioued as reported (beiug rather deaf it minht have been so said), but had I heard it, I mobt assuiedly should have dissented from such interpretation of anything I had said. I certainly did not take the remarks of the bench in refeniug to clause 17 of the Impounding Act in a personal Bense, rb I am well aware that I have the same power as " an authorised person," subject to the third paragraph, exceptions as a matter of coarse. — I am, &c, Francis J. Gane.

Normanby, July 6. [We have taken the liberty of excising from this letter some remarks made about a third persoD. — Ed. Star. |