PECULIAR CASE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXVI, Issue 7926, 31 July 1886, Page 3

PECULIAR CASE.

(Before H. C. S. Baddeley, Esq., R.M.) The Ashburton Eesident Magistrate's Court was occupied till a late hour yesterday afternoon with a civil action, which has excited a large amount of local interest. D. Buckley, a farmer at Kyle, sued H. W. Parsons, one of his neighbours, for £2s—being £5 alleged to have been improperly paid by plaintiff to defendant, and £2O, the amount of damage sustained by the plaintiff through the defendant seizing and over-driving 482 sheep, his (plaintiff's) property. Messrs Wilding and Caygill appeared for the plaintiff; and Messrs Purnell and Crisp for the defendant. Mr Wilding, having briefly stated the salient points of the case, called the following evidence: — D. Buckley, the plaintiff, said he occupied a farm adjoining that of defendant. On June 15 he saw defendant driving some sheep on the road. He feared the sheep might be his, and borrowed a horse and rode in pursuit of defendant. Tho sheep were being driven at a smart gallop, and he was unable to overtake the defendant, and abandoned the chase. The sbeep were evidently much distressed, and he found one lying by the road side. The following morning witness went to defendant's homestead and saw a number of his sheep there. Defendant refused to release the sheep unless JES were first paid on account of trespass, but he Baid the sum would be refunded if the Bheep did not trespass again before harvest. Witness paid the amount claimed under protest, and took delivery of the sheep. Seven of the flock had died in consequence of the violent driving. Defendant had a very poor fence around his property. In some places it was not more than 2ft Sin high. Cross-examined by Mr Purnell: His sheep did not trespass more than other people's. There was good feed on his farm. He had had to pay damages to Brick and Lowe, neighbouring farmers, for trespass. Did not complain to the defendant of the sheep having been over-driven until some time after the occurrence. He might have had an interview with Nicholas Walsh before he determined to take action. His sheep grew very strong from loafing on his neighbours. He did not tell Lambie that he agreed to pay £5 on the condition Stipulated by defendant. He did not recollect saying that this action was taken on the advice received from Nicholas Walsh. He did remember telling Brick that the sheep were beautiful jumpers, and he did not know that the

wires were an important part of a fence. He had not told Lambie that he was not sure the driven sheep were his. He was morally certain that they were. He had spoken of the damage sustained by the sheep, to several people. He had mentioned it to H. M'Cleary. M'Cleary bad gone to Kimberley. (Laughter.) He i could not recollect the name of any other person to whom he had spoken. T. Hurly said he had lent a horse to plaintiff to ride after a flock of sheep. He could not say who was driving the Bheep, or to whom they belonged. He knew nothing of the defendant's fences. C. C. Fooks, licensed surveyor, said he had measured the defendant's fences. They were from 2ffc 7in to 3ft 3in high. Plaintiff 'a fences had been burnt and were rather dilapidated. This concluded the evidence for the plaintiff, and the following evidence was called for the defence. H. Parsons, the defendant, said his fences were composed of five wires, well strained and staked, and were nearly all covered by gorse. Plaintiff's flock was a mixed one, and very wild, against which fences were almost useless. The sheep had been a great trouble to witness. This was the only trouble he had had in the district. He left his farm on June 14, and anticipated to be away for some days. He returned unexpectedly the next day, and found the plaintiff's sheep in one of his best paddocks of grass. He drove the sheep very quietly to his yards, and the following morning sent a messenger to plaintiff claiming £5 for trespass. Plaintiff came to witness, and it was amicably agreed that the former should deposit the amount claimed as a guarantee against future trespass. If no trespass occurred before harvest, the amount was to be refunded to plaintiff. Plaintiff then had breakfast with witness, and witness agreed to assist him (plaintiff) in erecting proper sheep yards. Murdoch Bruce, a neighbour to the defendant, said his (defendant's) fences were the strongest and best kept in the district. They were better than the fences described by the Fencing Act. The defendant was a very careful man with stock, and would not be at all likely to over-drive sheep. The plaintiff's fences were miserable, and not worthy of the name. D. Brick, a farmer, said defendant's farm was surrounded by splendid sheepproof: fences. Plaintiff's sheep were notoriousVjumpers. They could not be fenced out. Plaintiff boasted of the cross-country capabilities of his flock. He (plaintiff) had some land of his own. but usually fed his sheep on other people's property. Gertrude Parsons, wife of the defendant, corroborated the evidence of the latter •with regard to the agreement to the deposit of £5. She was present when the arrangement was made. / v. John Lambie, farmer, corroborated the evidence given by the other witoeßsesfor the defense. He said the plaintiff had told him that Nicholas "Walsh had given -him (plaintiff) the law oa the matter, and ha.d advised him to bring an action against the defendant. This closed the evidence for the defence, and Mr Purnell was proceeding to address the Bench, when Mr Wilding intimated that if the Court credited the statement made by defendant with regard to the £5, he would accept a nonsuit. Mr Baddeley said the Bench felt compelled to accept the defendant's version of the affair. The case should never have come into Court. If defendant had consulted a solicitor instead of relying upon the advice of Nicholas Walsh, whoever that individual might be, he might have pursued a wiser course. Plaintiff was nonsuited with costs.