RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, Arrowtown, Monday, Jan. 22.

Lake County Press, Issue 34, 26 January 1872, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, Arrowtown, Monday, Jan. 22.

(Before R. Buetham, Esq., R.M.J An inebriate was fined 10s, with the option of 24 hours' imprisonment. CHARGE OF SHEEP-STEALING. Timothy Cotter was charged, on the information of James Torrie, with having feloniously stolen and taken away a certain sheep tha property of the said James Torrie. Mr Turton acted for the prose cution and Mr Burton defended accused. James Torrie deposed that he was a sheepowner, residing at Cardrona. In the space of last eighteen months he had lost 1100 sheep. Believed they were stolen, and suspected accused. Went occasionally to the yards of accused when he was mustering or slaughtering. Went there on the 12th inst. There were about 60 sheep then in the yard. Recognised one of them as being his. It was branded Ton near side, and ear-marked back half and fore bit. It had been recently shorn. He recognised the sheep as his by a slit in off ear. His sheep were ear marked with two slits in off ear, and branded circle and bar. When witness recognised the sheep he sent for the constable. .Remained at the yards till the constable came, and gave sheep into his possession. The sheep produced was the same he saw in the yard of accused, and which the constable took charge of. Witness produced the skin of a sheep bearing his ear mark. That mark could be easily altered to the same as that on the live sheep produced. By Mr Barton—On the 15th January I charged accused with assault. The assault arose through my going to bis yards to examine his sheep. Did not see the accused take the sheep, nor any of hisservants. Know Cotter's brand ; it is Ton near shoulder. His usual ear mark is two fore halves. Ido not brand my sheep with T on shoulder, but would claim sheep so branded if they bad my ear mark. The sheep in dis*pute was apparently freshly branded T, and was just shorn. I did not see the fleece, and took no steps to secure it. Cotter's ear mark is something like that on sheep produced. All my sheep are not rqarked with two slits in ear— only 100 two-year olds. The sheep produced has only one slit in ear, my mark is two slits in ear. The second slit might be cut off, and I believe it has been. I have no hesitation in swearing the sheep is my property. I have no ill-feeling or malice against accused. (The prosecutor gave his evidence in a most unsatisfactory manner—indeed, as the Bench remarked, it had to be dragged out of him). James Torry jun., gave corroborative evidence, and William Colville, who ;had been present at the ear-marking of Torry's sheep two years ago proved complainant's brand and mark. He thought ear mark in sheep produced very like Torry's, but could not swear positively it was Torry's mark. This closed the case for prosecution. The Magistrate held there was no case, there being too many elements of uncertainty. The charge was dismissed. T. Cotter v. J. Kerins—Claim for £2O, damages done by defendant's pigs trespassing in plaintiff's potatoe field. It was attempted to be shown that the pigs which did the damage might belong to plaintiff himself, and an impartial witness assessed the injury doue to crop at £2. The Bench thought a good deal of ill-feeling existed between the parties. He would accept the evidence of Mr Pearson and give a verdict for £2, with £3 17s costs. The Magistrate said defendant had no right to lay hands on plaintiff; but in consideration of the provocation received would onlyinflict apenaltyof 10s and costs 6s 6d.

W. Belton was charged with illegally occupying Crown Lands. Belton had been charged a fortnight ago with this offence, and was allowed 14 days to remove. The time had expired, without

r emoval. Fined 10a. At urgent request of Belton, Mr Beetbam allowed him 3 weeks longer to clear off, as it was stated he was building a house for himself. Had offender pleaded inability to move, and not (asserted a right, no doubt a fine would not have been inflicted.

Torrie v. Cotter—This was a charge of assault arising out of the case of sheep stealing previously heard. It appeared that plaintiff went to defendant's yard to look for some sheep bus pected to be stolen. Defendant was shearing at the time, and ordered him out of the yard, under pain of being put out. Plaintiff refused, and defendant caught hold of him and tried to force him out. This he could not do, and proceeded to strike Torrie with his fists. This Cotter denied, contending that the fisticuffs were indulged in by both parties. L V a ;ii v. Touhy—Claim for £2O, being made up of £ll for horse hire, and balance for use of dray and harness. £9 19s 6d paid into Court. The case turned upon the question whether plaintiff had agreed to accept a sum of 40s per month for use of horse, cart arid harness or for horse alone, and the cart and harness to be paid extra for. Several witnesses were examined and a verdict for £ll 3s given, including amount paid into Court. Same v. Same—Claim for 20s damages for illegally working a horse. Case dismissed. Hallenstein v. Haddock—Claim for £9 8s 4d. Judgment by default. Same v. James Evans—£3 18s. Judgment by default. Same v. White. —Judgment by default. ' Edwards v. Bushe—Withdrawn. WARDEN'S COURT. (Before R. Beetham, Esq., Warden.) Houlahan and Party v. H. Graham— Claim for 41 ss, duo for water supply at rate of 5s per month Defendant pleaded an indebtedness of only 21, contending that he ought not to pay so much for water as those who had it brought in pip&s to their doors.—Judgment was given for l amount claimed, with costs, 17s 6d. Clayton v. Burrell — summons to issue. i J. Kerin vT. Cotter —A complaint that ' defendant allowed 50 or more sheep to I trespass on great cattle country at Cardrona on the 3rd instant. Mr Turton for complainant, Mr Barton for defendant. It was confessed by defendant's counsel that the area specified in the information was great c>ittle couutry. Witnesses were called in proof of the trespts*; that the sheep were defendant's property ; and that due care was not exercised in keeping them off great cattle block. For the defence it was asserted that the sheep were not Cotter's, as his sheep had been carefully shepherded since a previous action; every care was takeu to keep them off great cattle country, which was a task of some difficulty ; tiiat there was a conspiracy amongst the cattle-owners at Cardrona against him, and that they had agreed to take turn about to prosecute him. (Thislatter statemeut was confessed on the ground that it would be too heavy for one man always to prosecute, and that to protect themselves the cattle owners had therefore banded together.) Mr Barton urged for a non-suit, on the grounds above-stated, and quoted Judge Johnston on Conspiracies. The Warden considered the trespass had been proved. This was the second, if not third, offence, and it must be put a stop to. At first blush it might seem a coldblooded arrangement for cattle-owners to band together to prosecute, but he con-' ceived they had done so to protect themselves against a mutual wrong, and therefore it was justifiable. He did not wish to be too severe on defendant, but must inflict such penalty as to deter the offence again occurring. It was for Cotter to consider whether it would pay him better to put an extra man on to protect the boundary, or be mulcted in heavy damages at Court. He should inflict a penalty of 161, and costs, 91 6s.