CORRESPONDENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume IV, Issue 160, 28 January 1854, Page 5

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Lyllelton Times. Sir, —It has heen remarked that ".It is the common late of erroneous positions that they are betrayed by defence and obscured by explanation ; that their authors deviate from the main question into incidental disquisitions, and raise a mist where they should let in light." Such, I think, has been the attempt of the '• Land and Cattle Owner" —to mystify as much as possible, instead of illuminating. Though professing great anxiety and acknowledging the necessity of calling public attention to the subject of the Trespass Laws, his real object appears to me to endeavour to set aside the question if possible. In his first letter he attempts to make it a party question. He reminds me of the fable of the bull and the frog; he tries to swell Cattle Owners to the importance of Stock Fanners, to make if appear that they who have a proper run for their cattle and tend them, and they who have neither the one nor do the other, are on the , same footing, and that, therefore these Cat- ! tie Owners are an important class. I en. ! deavoured to shew in my second letter that they are not so, that there is as much difference between them as the smuggler and fair trader. Other misrepresentations and contradictions I will forbear to notice ; they were probably designed to cast as great a , mist over the quest ion as he could do. \ Now it is just possible I may have been , wrong all this time. He may have been captivated with the comprehensiveness and I conckisiveness of the logical method of the * old woman who borrowed the tea kettle, a which has so recently appeared in your V, columns, and has been trying how far it may be applied to subjects generally, and " the Trespass Ordinance in particular. Or - being struck with the epistolary style of the ' gallant Colonel he has become an imitator. 5" I am inclined to the latter supposition : there is that pleasing familiarity; he. possesses ( the same ability for plunging the subject on which he enlarges in hopeless obscurity, and he delivers dogmas in the same oracular manner. If he has failed anywhere, it is because he has sacrificed elegance and dignity to expressiveness ; the gallant Colonel never was " shut up." But this failure is counterbalanced by an improvement he has effected at the close of his epistles; the ' modesty with which he concludes is well I worth the attention of his master. Upon \ the whole I think we may conclude he has been eminently successful; with a little more practice he will become perfect. I must now take my leave of the Land and Cattle Owner. I must acknowledge that his powers of mystification exceed mine of illumination. Iteration is useless. I shall therefore without further apology leave him at the beginning of his second letter, i. c. with the pigs. Before leaving the subject of Trespass Law, I will ni;vke ;i few observations on the subject. Trespass Laws are evidently framed with a view to the ■ protection, of those who till the land ; to compell those who.possess cattle to exercise proper care over them, and that they shall not be allowed to injure the property of others, however unprotected, with impunity ; it recognizes the sacreduess of a man's possession, however exposed it may bo. That, in England these laws have always been*-stringent, strictly enforced, and efficacious, is sufficiently proved by the quantity of land in different counties now in cultivation unenclosed. Some fifty or sixty years ago it was tenfold more than at the present time. There is a passage in Hume's lingland which I think bears strongly on the question. July 4th, 1607.—" About this time there was an insurrection of the couu-

try people in Northamptonshire. They went about destroying enclosures, but carefully avoided committing any other outrage. The chief cause of this trivial commotion seems to have been, of itself, far from trivial. The practice still continued in England of disusing tillage, and throwing the land into enclosures for the sake of pasture." The only use I wish to make of this'quotation is to shew that at that time enclosed land for tillage was a thing unknown. I have not the proper authorities at hand to shew what the law then was, but I should infer it was severe on the point of trespass, so much so, that persons requiring pasturage enclosed it. The laws in force in England at the present day are very explicit. I will make one or two questions. Every man's ground in the eye of the law, is enclosed either by a visible fence, or imaginary boundary line, and whosoever enters upon it, without leave of the owner, is a trespasser. " But a person is answerable not only for his own trespass, but that of his cattle; for if by negligent keeping, they stray upon the land of another and tread down the herbage or commit other injury, this is a trespass for which the owner must answer in damages." Now that this applies not only to the possessor of the laud, but the occupier, or even a person purchasing the crop, is evident from another passage. "An exclusive interest in the crop or herbage, without a property in the soil, is sufficient, to maintain an action of trespass." Whether or not this law might not be enforced here, I am not sufficiently read in the Ordinance to say. There is, I think, no doubt it should be for- these reasons — the low rate and ease with which pasturage may be obtained in comparison with England. As regards beasts employed for draught, the greater amount the proprietor obtains for their labour would cover the extra expense comparatively of keeping the same in Kuglaud. Again we have introduced the law which prevents the owner of the crop from executing summary justice on the property of the offender. I quote from memory, but there is, I believe, a legal maxim, " that there is no offence without a remedy ;" the law is supposed to provide for everything. If we do away with this maxim, injustice immediately follows. One of the most pleasing features in English villages are the plots of ground cultivated by the road side, their fence consisting generally of a few upright sticks with briars interlaced. Yet these are as sacred and inviolable as the wall which surrounds the palace, or fence which encloses the park. We have not. left our country to forget its laws, under which we have been orderly and peaceably governed, their equity, and (in their intention) total disrespect of person. Let us remember we are Englishmen ; as such we are bound not only to fct justly ourselves, but, whether immediately interested or not, to prevent the perpetration of injustice on others. I remain, yours, &c, A'TILLEK OF THE SOIL. The Plains, Jan. ID, 1534

To the Heddittur of the Ly Helton Times. Zur, —Thir 1) a savin at whoam that when we; ay a grivance we b onyht to rile to ih' Times. Now, Zur, as j ours is our Tiinos. I rite to you, an I rites to ax you why a poor man, that's a workin hard for his livin, sh'd b rob'tl of his crops by thiin Cati'l owniu clm])S. lad as heautifnlcst, a growin crop of taters an young1 calibidgi plants as any in this colonelcy. I b hard at wurk too a ien'-in o* my land when down comes a lot of these vannintes of younij

beastes just landed, what belongs to a genlemau who as a sort of hospital in these parts—sum calls it a nursery for young-uns. Well, he sinds the critters on my land wich as a good feed on't an darned if they ant eat em all off. I goes an talks to un, but he ups and says I ant fjjxct. Well, that's true an no mistnk. But thin I wants to know why these beastes which he gives 12 pun a piece for, as poor as poor on boord ship, shud eat off my crops, and my land-and so soon be wurth 25 £ a head, and why I shudut be allowed to go and my Ik em. If he's a right to the fat, surelie I've a right to summut. But they tells me this ud be fellone. The Catel ownir pays his money, and feeds his stock on other foks stuff an soon 2*s his capitle an pays no much for labor—but we farmin chaps aye to plow an to harrer—to scad and to weede to reep an to arvest, an to pay a goodish bit of money for this siyht of wurk an we're no much betti'r arter all. but now it pirns we'er to b obligated to fense what we doant want to us to plase these genelmen. I' a sen at whoam in sum of our open lans, I remembers Battersy fit-Ides, a Notis to trespasrs—which is them as goes onto th' lande without leaf ul be presecuted—l'm thinking what a ternation deal of persecutings ud b add'd tot if the trespasr ware to hate up or bolt with th' crops. But this beer is quear law which givs all th' gaam into one man's and. It sims to me the Catel chaps hold all th' trump kerds in th' pack, an we poore chaps all th' reste. If this is Colloney law, I'm diiru'd if it's fare English just is. Yrs, Mr. Hedittur, ROGEH, The Plains, 18th January.

To the Editor of (he LyHelton Times. Sir. —The question which has been raised between the " I iller of the Soil," and the " Laud and Cattle Owner," being1 in my opinion one of so much social rmpdrtance, you will, I trust, pardon w.y intrusion upon your columns in resumingl the arguments contained in my last week's communication. First, allow me to thank # you for drawing1 my attention to the Ordinance in which the question of trespass is supposed to be setlied. Having succeeded in obtaining access to a copy of the New Zealand Ordinances, I have perused them with great attention; the result is a stronger conviction than ever that the Ordinance in question has reference to the squatter rather than to the renter or owner of property. It will assist in clearing the way before us, if we give the clause as it is found in the Cattle Trespass Ordinance to which you allude—" Whenever an?- cattle shall trespass on land which shall be substantially fenced, and shall do any damage thereon, it shall be lawful for any two Justices of the Peace, upon application of the person suffering such damage, to hear and determine the case in a summary way, and on being satisfied as to the amount of such damage by the oath or solemn affirmation, as the case may require, of two witnesses competent from practical knowledge or otherwise to estimate the same, to award to the party sustaining such damage any sum not exceeding £20, by way of compensation fur the same." But. I turn naturally to the Fencing Ordinance, wheivin I naturally expected to find some allusion to the necessity for such fencing and a description of the character of fence which the law deems to b« protective, and find it has reference only to the fence as between neighbouring tenements. This, then, strange to say, is the only way ia which mention is made of the subject. And let me here beg attention to the dates of these Ordinances. The Cattle Tresntu'i (For continuation y see 10//* poge.J