FOXTON,

Manawatu Herald, Volume I, Issue 12, 4 October 1878, Page 2

FOXTON.

Wednepday, October 2. (Before E. Ward, Ksq., R.M.)

WAXJSEKING CATTLE. P. Naylon charged John Puroell with a breach of the Local Board Act, in allowing 10 head of cattle to be at large in the streets of Foxton on ths 23rd of September last. There was a second charge of allowing the same cattle to wandor on the 24th

instant. Defendant objected to the information, as plaintiff had no authority to lay it, unless authorised by the Chairman of the Local Board. The case was the result of a revengeful spirit almost bordering on insanity. His Worship held that defendant must produce the Act in support of his objection, but as a copy could not be obtained the case was gone on with.

P. fc aylon deposed— l am a farmer, residing near Foxton ; I know defendant ; I also know his cattle ; on the 23rd of September I saw ten of de* fondant's cattle at large ; I reside in the town of Foxton, and saw de-» fondant's cattle wandering ; I have no grudge against defendant, and never pounded one of his beasts. Defendant here admitted some of his cattle were at large on that day. Examination continued — No one was driving the cattle ; afterwards one of defendant's sons came and took the animals away ; there were two of them on my giounds, and I would have pounded them before, but had no time ; I went to the Chairman of the Local Board, and he advised me to go to the Count} Council for instructions ; afterwards I went to the Clerk of the Court and laid an information.

Cross»exaniined— There was a boy after the cattle ; defendant's fence is a good one ; the cattle complained of are driven by defendant on lo absentee land ; the cattle were not in a paddock. John Sullivan, a labourer, deposed, — I saw young Purcell drive the cattle along the road ; I don't know how many head there were ; I think the straying was an accident, and that defendant took away the cattle as soon as he knew they were in the town.

Cross-examined by the Court — I often see the cattle come into town.

Cross-examined by defendant— l know some of your cattle ; I don't know them, all ; X would like to know how many you have got. Defendant— l don'i think you ever will. (Laughter.) Defendant being sworn said — I' am the owner of certain cattle, but sufficient care is taken of them; through stray ing horses getting in the paddocks on the day in question, the fences were broken down, and my cattle got out ; directly I knew, my son went to look after them, and the next morning early, he also went and watched the cattle to ; prevent their getting out again ; the cattle were in the paddock on Monday ; they were not out of the paddock loL»g ; they were making for home. Air Purcell said Mr Cook, in whose paddock the cattle were placed, was ! present to corroborate his evidence. j was unnecessary. A cweuSWc^ : boon made out. The information could only stand where carelessness or negligence was shown, and plain* tiff had admitted that defendant's fences vere all in good order. The information was dismissed with costs, 335. TRESPASS. Iharaira Hi and four others v. Eopata Eanapiri -Claim £20, for the trespass of 400 sheep from the 7th of August, to the 24th of September, 1878, in the Manawatu Kukutauaki, in the district of Manawatu. Dr Buller for the plaintiffs, and Mr Staite for the defendant. Dr Buller said he would rely upon the finding of the Court in a previous case, as to the ownership of the land. Plaintiff said he lived on the land in question, and had seen sheep on it belonging to defendant. At an early period of the action, Mr Staite objected to the absence of primary mdenco of title. A long discussion ensued, and eventually his Worship decided that the certificate must be produced. Nonsuit entered with costs, 19s, and professional costs 21s. "Wuteno te Whena and tw^^^Mrg v. Thomas Bevan. ClaiDj^^Hßs, for trospass for three year^^^^H^^ Dr Buller, for defend aifl^^^^flM a nonsuit on four grounds^^HßPrl the formalities of the Act, regarding ] service, had not been complied with, j iMr Staite acceptod the nonsuit, but ' would be glud to hear his learned friend's other reasons. Dr Buller declined to arm his learned friend with arguments for the next sitting. A discussion ensued an to costs. Nonsuited, with professional.costs, £3 3s, and costs of court. CIVIL CABES. J llanapiri v. Hatete— Claim '£6 4s iJ for goods sold. Nonsuited, with ■ costs, £l Hs. *^amm W. J. and F. Loudon v. 11. SJ^H mon— Claim £6 5s sd. DefendHH admitted a claim of £4 lls Bd,^H| declined liability for remainder, w^^H was interest charged. Defen^^HJ said he was burnt out in Jan^^^H last, and had had various l^^^H Plaintiff said he had it clearly^^M fled at the head of his bills thi^^H

terest would 'be charged. Judgmen for plfiiuiff for amount claimed ant costs, 138; holf the money to b< l paid on Ist November, the remainde: * on Ist Docembcr. Same v. T. King9well. No proo of service of summons. Saino v. T. Morris— Claim £3 9i 2d. No appearance of defendant, Judgment by default. Main' iff said he had offered to give defendant employment at 8s per day to work out the account, but his offer had not been accepted. W. H. Reeve v. 0. Somerville— —-Claim £l 16s 6d, for wood and carting. Mr Staite for plaintiff. Plaintiff said the ]W cfiS char S ed were reasonable, andtnat defendant had ordered the things. A set-ofi was produced of 4)2, for driving a team for plaintiff about three years ago along the tram while he went to a cricket match, but plaintiff swore defendant had accepted 15s as payment. Defendant said "he had no bill until tho summons was served ; and swore no payment had ever been received ior the Palmerston trip Judgment for plaintiff for amount and Court costs, 9s; service, 12s j professional fee, 2ls. J. Symons v. E. M. Symons— judgment summons — claim £16 10s 3d. No proof of service.