R. M. COURT.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 169, 21 January 1888, Page 2

R. M. COURT.

Friday, January 20

Before J- Allen Esq., R.M.

CIVIL CASES. Spring Creek Road Board v Henry Satherly.—Claim, £6 17s 6d for rates due. For plaintiffs ; posts, 1j.3. Spring Creeks Rivers Board v IJenry Satherly.—Claim, £5 10s 6d for rates duo. For plaintiffs ; costs, 14s. In both these eases His Worship refused to allow the rate-collector, Mr ft, Rush, his expenses. Litchfield and Son v A- Mason,—Claim, £3 9s 2d for goods supplied. No appearance of defendant. For plaintiffs ; costs, 7s. O’Sullivan v Shieshla. —-Claim, £1 ss. I-’or plaintiff ; costs 6s. Litchfield and Son v 11. Edwards. — Claim, £l3 6s Bd. No appearance of defendant For plaintiffs; costs, £1 os. In this and a preyious case Mr Litchfield was not present when first called on, auft the case cases were thus struck out, being afterwards reinstated. Parker v Ivernahan and Todd. —Claim, £67 11s on dishonored promissory notes. For plaintiff ; costs, £2 Us. Leslie v Kennington.—This case was adjourned from last Friday in order to give the plaintiff an opportunity of calling rebutting evidence as to the custom of giving a lamb for a wet ewe on another man’s property. —Mr MTntyre again appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Sinclair for defendant. —The first witness called was John Gibson, a resident on the North sido of flip Wairau. river at Kaituna, who said his lancl' was a udjq}njj-.g that of Leslie. He had been working' Among sheep for the hist 30 years. It was always customary to give one lamb for each wet ewe that was found trespassing on another man’s land. However, neighbours sometimes' arranged' amongst themselves about the matter. In order id identify the sheep and lambs they are placed in adjacent pens. A small opening is left, and the ewes will get through and pick out their own young. A lamb will suck a strange ewe, but a ewe will net suck a strange lamb. Though ewes were taken away 10 miles they woulq corno back looking for their lainb-A whb would perhaps-pipe or die on apcoqnt of ibcir inOthe’fis absence." To Mr Sinclair: I have' hot had'arjy experience on this side of tho Wairau river. Mr George Watson, who gave evidence for the defendant last week, has not had very much experience among sheep. Ts Mr MTntyre : Mr Leslie’s house is ab’ouf’fiyd'miles from-mine. The custom’about' the* ewes and wet lamb- is‘.4o weft known tl.ig.tr owners seldom go ic-'law-on tho subject, Joseph Wyatt: Have been a steepfarmer on the north side of the TV'uirau for the last eleven years, during which time it has always been the custom to give a ’amb for every wet ewe. He was never award that it wu» ike custom to detain all lambs found trespassing.- ■ i To Mr Sinclair: When lambs two or J three months old : are taken a-xkiy from I the the ewes re- laiiit wet for eight j pr pine 'days ajßrwarqH- , halve been | siBOBf sheep iff rim Varrau, the j and iLailrouVa Up--- j To Mr MTntyre : The «wca are sufc to go bade to where their lambs arc-, and by | auch means a man could soon get a large flock. j hvil! ipip Parker, of Blenheim, stated . thal he bad now been owner of --hc-ep arid * lan.il in the 1 \Va3rkiior the last A j year A' ? lamb for a wet ewe,

To Mr Sinclair : I have not come here particularly to go “ agin ” the defendant’s case, which I heard stated last Friday, but I have come to give my experience. I did nut know that it was the custom in the. Awatere not to give up the lambs. As to Scottie Simson’s assertion that he never got any Limbs, he knows nothing whatever about sli ep. He has had more cxperieii ;e among horses. The custom for the last 15 or Id years had been, so far as he knew, to turn the wet ewes back at the first mustering, and arrange between the owtiers at weaning time.

Mr Sinclair : You are accused of being a partisan in this case. When were you first spoken to about giving evidence ? Witness : Shortly bef >re 11 o’clock. I did not come to town specially to be a witness.

To Mr MTntyre: 1 do not think it would injure the ewes by taking away their lambs when three months old. Milk fever is only likely to result on very rich pastures. Arthur Wellington Bott deposed that he was a farmer and slieepowner living about seven miles from Leslie’s place, where he had been located for the last eleven years. He stated that it was invariably the custom to give a lamb for every wet ewe found trespassing. To Mr Sinclair: Witness’s land was now fenced, but this did not prevent his sheep from straying now aud then. On one or two occasions I have been refused lambs back - once from Mr Sutton at the third muster. Mr Sutton never retained lambs before or after this. I think he must have run short of lambs that time. (Laughter). Frank Sutton, was a resident of 20 years standing in the Kuituna district, and at present owned a sheep run. He had been among sheep all his life, in fact, he said he had almost been born in a sheep yard (laughter). I did not give last witness any lambs for stragglers, because they could not bo identified. To Mr Sinclair : It is not the custom to keep all the lambs aud return none. I do not known bow tbo cwos would be affected. by taking away their lambs. Isaac Gifford said that for the last 28 years in the Spring Greek district it had been the custom to give and take lambs for owes. He knew no custom of absolutely detaining the lambs. The mothers will generally go hack to their lambs if they can. To Mr MTntyre : Leslie once returned mo some lambs that had trepassed on his property. Mr Cameron, shccpfarmer, Ivaituna (recalled), stated that lambs were always given for wet ewes. To Mr Sinclair : I remember Keuiiington taking away two ewes from Leslie’s when they were drafting, but I did not sec him take away any lambs with them. I have never detained any lambs belonging to my neighbours. This concluded the evidence. Mr Sinclair said the claim was a ridiculous ouo. Fancy plaintiff claiming 32s for 8 old owes which had died because of the loss of their lambs ?

His Worship said he could save Mr Sinclair further trouble on that head, as he did not intend to make any allowance, for them. Mr Sinclair said that his client had no case to answer. He (defendant) was asked to pay os per head for 30 wretched lambs that would be dear at 2s per head. Mr Sinclair asked that His Worship deal with the case under the equity and good conscience clause, as the case now resolved itself into one of costs. He dwelt shortly on the various evidence given as to the custom of treating stray ewes, qud said that sotpe farmers made ii practice of sending their sheep astray so as to get the breeds mixed. Ifc submitted that judgment should be given for the defeudapt. Mr MTntyre said if was all very well for his friend to use strong language and call plaintiff’s ewes and lambs wretched, but from the evidence given to the Court it could he seen that Leslie had obtained •fs Gd each for some of his lambs, and another witness in the Ivaituna district had received as much as 7s Gd each for his lambs. The costs of both sides totted up would come to more than the stake at issue ; but the case was also of importance, inasmuch as the decision of the Court would affect in some way or other a large number of farmers and sheepowners. The defendant could easily have had another remedy for his. supposed wrongs by putting into forco certain clauses of the Impounding Act. iVfr MTntyre scouted the idea of reprisal, and hoped that the Court would not iake it iqto consideration. At an early stage in thp hearing of the case he had objected to evidence being called as to such custom, and now he wauld ask the Court not to reoogniso any claim as to the custom, which must have existed from time immemorial, and which could not possibly be set up in the Colony. Witnesses for the defence were mostly composed of inustcrers, laborers, etc., but those fur the plaintiff were landowners aud men of long experience. All the lat-* ter concurred as to the custom of giving an‘d" taking lamb for eqcfi' wet ewe: There was only the plaintiffs evjdeqco, however, as to the ewes dying through losing their lambs, Ope witness for the plaintiff, Mr Gifford, actually stated that on one occasion Mr Leslie had -iven him lambs,

His Worship, in giving judgment, said that in order to save time and trouble, agreements might he made in large pastoral districts, among the sheep owners, not to give or take lambs, but where the custom was so strong against the letter and spirit of tho law, the evidence should be very strong indeed for a Court to take notice of it. In the present instance the custom had undoubtedly been to tako and rive lambs for wet ewes. Kennington*s ovldenoe whs given in a very straightforward manner, and it was a credit to him, but lie admitted that he did not give Leslie the latnbs back because his sheep had been trespassing. The evidence as to the value of the lambs was very cbntnfdiqtdry; 'biff His Y/orsJ'.ip said lie would value their, at 3s per h e ad, Ih Q identity of the larnbs was fully proved, but as plaintiff said that ho only saw 20, judgment would be given for £3. Enough evidence bad boon adduced to show that the sheep had not died from the effects of losing their lambs, and therefore he would allow nothing f6r them. • '.judgment would be given for the' plaintiff for £3’ and costs. , Regarding the costs of the ease, His Worship replied that they would require careful adjustment. He would allow Court costs (£1 2s), but only one guinea for solicitor’s fee, as it was at the instance of plaintiff that the case had been adjourned f*>r a week;- The total costs oi witnesses amounted' to £9 ! 4s'4cß : { ]\jr Sinclair risked that execution might be stayed for a week, in order to allow Mr Kennington to bring a cross action for grazing. His Worship accordingly made an order staying judgment for a week.