WOODVILLE R.M. COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume 4, Issue 285, 5 November 1883, Page 2

WOODVILLE R.M. COURT.

(Before Preece, R. ; , John Chalmers y.tlameß Darey. The; action was bropgat for^he trespass, of stoc k; belonging ; to t^d(?fendattt. ; ; on the ; plaintiff's groperj^ fof; which a I trespass fee 6^ Is par *da^ was[ claimed,. , Plaintiff (wihduwed 'his joimcase, ; Mr Baker fbrjjejfenpp^."/ *■ i '>b:'ih\zm < f U Plaintiff : My claim is £9 sa. Defendant has . trespassed 'upoa me the last four years.' f only Bue.fp? v trespasß, irom Aagußt;;2o|h ; to Septembac lQth, t and as follows i :"l^bwwn>hoxse,>jaoß^ I per day, 2s; 1 yeilow ; mare y s Jjaj^, ».ssj1 ;j cowtlß days, ,lßs jII heifer from' August 20 to September j 10th, £1 2s - t \ 1 buU, 10a per day ; othecg^erja ana-, m J erated- u i»"~tb^^category^feringingthe !i :i6ialtnrtp>Jthe;ißttm meutionfed,^ ;i;:i vC : .- „,- Mi r Baker rOn-^hat-gipunds do you claim Is per day? PJamriff :, .I-canr. eider I am entitled to claim that. ( Did you giye^special notice to defendant between tW datas tor wbicn jou^are, sjo.-;^ ingi'that^oa would charge j|sjgerj day. fdrtrespasß? No. Is yiour,sJ(and a aa r joihiiig defenclaßt'n t Piaintiff Vt neri_, produced a map and deaorib^ f }he^i)U£3Cr Baker : Did you girenotics to defendant at any time to remove the qattle^felween Augast 20th and September lptlyf No, 1 all prior^w.Xugr 20tb. ™_A great amount ;of conflicting eTisen?§ o .was :ta^ken^ which^jra^f^ pubiicautereßt. " His Worship reserved rjudgment.quntilhe ha^heard the cross action. „ „.,., -, I Jbttrej '£ 'Chalmers. Clwm, trespass,, rdf /defendint's . .beast pn plaintiffs 1 land. .Piaiatiff, stafedj'tha^a.t times the , defendant bad. allowed more cattle to : Btray 7 than hiiu self, , had- asked rdefendant, tOlremoye bis stockfronv his (pLiutjffs) ' I lqnd. ; am?g?J^Ci^fe^j^??.s&}**strees?by.themvyl' J sw^aVf^h|aVth'«g9 u^ belong^to defendant. I was not informed of^damage done or iaaked.to haye th« sam^aaseasedv^Si'nca I the suuimons Waftßerved 2 lhafe-not^adVimetoiiaTe Un% Hiniag^aTiied'. a ■ \ s ,.r s .. ,,, ,,-, uaaHia^otßhip^ejJtdftditore^ejrFej^ ment until 4 o'clock, as i^ neighbour* 1 - quarrels -Which his" Worship considered should not ., bare beeQ- - Brou'gnt a£t6 <^BS@l»at Jettlid oufeide.' —i j;nd|fmeDt for plaintiff] for £2, and - costs^mclutimg wJtnfesles ifees. -i >j t ] Jtv T^€^tttchins. A^aker; :for : plainuff, ! Mr HaVlcin^ for defendant '■ W BaSerßHeiflpijtateT ibSe c«e7 stating that it 1 to'^only.nec^sary^to^ Dta)]>r;6>K.|Jlaln|ieF's title jto tihe.Jand,.. sand ; tiie/ r treßpasB „tpi nominal' .damages , .but; m caW" .of in>padendet r large damages, > ;..,", 7 I Plaintiff said G. Hutchinsoame home from work on, We^es^ay /etening^ the . 2,6 th. J stoppsd to. >t ßee him, and: told him not to return mty Tand^The reply was,;,that ne woutd return, and I could" "•* pull" him if I| Uked, s ,<Dam- a . ages sustiined. Ewes heavy m. 'lamb's,' (fislurbed, lambs lost, graW out up^andi Bhe~ep~disturbed r There' 'is* '"£<*., ''fo^'i[ inyßrOTerty. t^efen4ant % 1 kae'wlih i at<f:Hfi4 ew|s,fn^ lamb?, W&,J[ "told him not to come* back m presence ofclßl&Mbtleyl but lie u would come (Bv«r my land 1 " m spite of me. 1 let them out of the fence the day I warned them, 1 Ihddf putO'ao wira^cross my^ 'I^obl&^ot help the road' being" ••bad; -I- doa-'t- taake -roalds, I. am .not. ft •Road-Bpafd. (laugK&rj. ' Mr Hawkins : lam asking you what 'd'ain^ee was done, you [are asking for •£ls ( ! damagesTlone /6iij that, day,.andbow do you make out mat amount. I •consider >f ally £6 damage was-'abne on--that day by the defendant. 1 aw, a, sheep farmerhereand have farmed sheep ' r a number ? "Ot 'lyears. Khe< pfarmers" never ■ permit any -one if 4 pass tbtough^ 1 fiook's'lambiftg, 1 aa^ach time much daidf "age might .be ; done ; ni Gannoi ;' ari ite at : * ; a calculation 1 of damage done. ' It is a serious ioffenot^ to difturb 'eWes a^d ! laffib l f.o?/j b[,A. f'"^ ->"' " a "< J lbe ! flefeddknt^ toot affirmation m lien of oath and saids* Saw "Bradford on h& road, and said, Aiß%^d\cky*tifeß-' %as 3 rd^oinjtourland? efwnt^grW^ '• tt&t rtfefeuould ke. p o STwild a3g«yiuu ' clohim good jthau harm, 'i'

sa/ed a sheep for defendant m puraaance of the underst wding tra had made. given by defendant The following witnesses were also exam Mi Hawkins summing up shewed tlm -WfltaiWft^ta for d S£?BS»ss=. Ed ,to evidently Bomt co3ts%4 Chalmer By.Stutdy.--c8 y.Stutdy.--ci i i nl^2l6s £^tf7*G&lo«— Clai mU Thi. w...a_crosß action of a similar natare' .hjd-notv^dajD^jLought an action :^M^dM^h«ft--Thiß was a waa^gifen for plaintiff fop 10j, with i G r^ked that theseu£ f °T?^f f^»iSil were notX farid^ng mtO^M, arising erlfc