TE KUITI S.M. COURT.

King Country Chronicle, Volume II, Issue 58, 29 November 1907, Page 3

TE KUITI S.M. COURT.

Friday, November 22nd, 1907,

(Before W. H. Northcroft, Esq., S,M.)

Police v. R. Blackman. —The defendant was eharged with having on the 9th November assaulted Christopher Thompson and damaging a door, the value of 3s 6d, the property of the same person. Mr Hine appeared for the defendant and Const. Mathew represented the police. This action was the outcome of fowls belonging to Thompson trespassing on the defendant's property. It was alleged that the defendant went to Thompson's house and smashed the door in with a shovel, and when Thompson made his appearance at the back door the defendant threw a bucket of water over him. After a discussion about the fowls it was also alleged by Thompson that the defendant struck him on the leg with a spade. The defendant admitted throwing the bucket of water but denied all knowledge of the spade and shovel episodes. —Case dismissed.

T. Simmons v. Higginson and Sauer.—Defendants were charged, on the information of the plaintiff, with trespassing at Matiere, on October 24th, while in pursuit of game. Mr Collins appeared for the plaintiff and Mr McDiarmid for defendants. The plaintiff stated that on the day in question he was startled by the report of guns, and found the defendants trespassing on his property with guns and a sporting dog. He went on to say that the defendants started to threaten him and called him abusive names when ordered off. He had no desire .to prosecute, and would have accepted an apolog3 r . The defendants made statements to the effect that they thought where they were was a public road, and that they 'were making for Mossman's, where they were going pig hunting. On passing through Simmons', however, they fired a couple of shots at a hawk, but did not intend to stay shooting there. —Taking into consideration the nature of the threats and the abusive language, His Worship fined each of the defendants 20s, and costs £4 14s 6d. M. Prendergast v. C. Hegglin.— Claim £SO for detention and trespass of sheep.—Mr Collins appeared for the plaintiff and Mr McDiarmid for defendant.

Martin Prendergast (Aria) stated on oath : I purchased 144 sheep about five months ago from McNicol & Co., and had that number on arriving home; the sheep were all branded with the bottom of a bottle to make an O, two O's were used for the brand, but about twelve were missed they only receiving one mark in the branding, for which red paint was used. The sheep were all pastured on my property and were there for about one month, when they started straying. I got permission from Mr Smyth to use his paddocks. About two months ago I sold 66 sheep to Mr Thomas, but before selling I wanted to muster. I went to Hegglin and on his paddocks noticed - five of my sheep. I informed Hegglin that I was selling and asked for a muster to get them out. Defendant remarked that they would probably get back and that he would not muster to suit me. I only saw five of my sheep, but defendantiremarked " there might have been ten. I told him I would compell him to muster and he agreed to do so in a week's time; during the week he sent a message to Mr Morgan. Defendant did not keep his promise, but sometime afterwards he gave me notice that he intended mustering his place. I went over and found him driving sheep off the place I had from Smyth. I was too far off to stop him and so went on to his yards. I picked out 14 sheep which I believe had my brand, but when Hegglin refused me possession of any sheep in the yard till after the shearing. When defendant would not give me possession I did not go on picking out the sheep. Hegglin took sheep off Smyth's place and drove them on to his own. About two month's ago I counted thirty-one sheep in the paddock but there may have been more. Since then I have been in the habit of going to Smyth's and have seen tracks along the road but could get no trace of any tracks into the paddocks. The tracks led in through the reserve into Hegglin's paddock. To Mr Collins : Hegglin refused to give up possession until after shearing. Defendant had told him several sheep had died and he either buried or burnt them. I sold sixty-six and can acount for twenty losses, the balance I believe Hegglin took. For the defence Messrs Hegglin, Kidd, Collett and Davidson all gave lengthy evidence and stated that the plaintiff had been given every opportunity to claim his sheep, and also that Hegglin did not have possession of that number.

His Worship said that there was not the least doubt that the Stock Act had been violated by both parties, and as neither of them had registered brands and none of the fences were sheep proof he could not see anything else but trouble ahead of the settters in the district. The plaintiff was nonsuited with costs.

Knauff Bros, v Lever Bros. —Claim £ls. —Judgment was entered for'plaintiffs, on conditionlthat distress be not put into execution till after next Court day: