MANAIA R.M. COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume IX, Issue 1711, 25 August 1887, Page 2

MANAIA R.M. COURT.

(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONnENT.)

Gilmour v. J. H. Carroll. — Claim .£lO 28 Id. Defendant wrote offering to pay £5 at the end of August and the balance within two months. The plain tiH agreed to this, and judgment was given accordingly, with costs 11s.

Gapper v J. Christie.— Claim £2 7s Bd. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for amount claimed, and costs 7s.

John Hastie, Mauaia, was charged 1 ! on edo information of Kenvy Johnson, with wilful damage to a fence, contrary to the provisions of the Impounding Act. Mr. Corbett appeared for complainant, and Mr. Caplen for defendant.

Henry Johnson said that on or about the 9lh August his cattle got out of the gravel reserve n^ar his property on the Kapuui. and be found them on the South road, having #ot out of the gravel reserve, which was occupied by him. The cattle had got out through an opening about 5 feet wide, made in the fence; did not see defendant make the opening, but had been told by defendant that he had done it. The wire was cut away from defendant's fence ; the fence was two barbed wire fence, aad, although not a legal fence, was sufficient to keep ordinary quiet cattle from straying.

To Mr. Caplen — Did not see defendant cut the wire.

To the Booch— Defendant told me he cut the wire.

John Adamson, butcher, said that he told plaintiff cunt he tuoaghc defendant had pulled down the fence, but did not say that defendant had cut the wire; did not see the wire when it was detached from the fence, and do not think it was cut.

To Mr. Caplen— Cattle used to get from the gravel reserve to defendant's aad vice versa s ftnu it was tecesaary to erect a better fence on the boundary. Whilst doing this, I unfastened complainant's wires, which were not attached to strainer but to defendant's fence, thereby pulling it over ; could not strain it properly.

Constable Hickmaa described the position of the fence, as shown by previous evidence.

To Mr. Caplen— Don't think the wire was cut away from defendant's laud.

For the defence the following evidence was given, counsel explaining that the action of plaintiff was due to a feeling of soreness, owing to impoundiugs between the two parties.

John ilaM-ife Bain — Am defendaab in ihh case ; when entering on occupation of the land adjoining the gravel reserve the fence was in a bad condition ; have bad to repair it recently ; did not cut complainant's wire, but unfastened it.

To the Court — Did not fiend notice to complainant through thoughtlessness ; did nut wish complainant's stock to wander.

The R.M.— Don't you think you should have let complainant know about having removed this fence from yours ?

Defendant — I did not think I had any reason to give notice to him.

The Resident Magistrate said be would not convict, as the evidence did not seem to prove that the defendant broke down the tence with the object of allowing plaintiffs cattle to escape. It was, however, an unneighborly way to treat the complainant, who should have had notice of the fence being removed.