Magistrate’s Court.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume IX, Issue 1199, 26 February 1902, Page 2

Magistrate’s Court.

Tuesday, 24th February, 1901.

(Before Mr. James, S.M.) Houghton v. Wyatt. Defendant was charged with that he did, either in the months of October, November, or December, 1901, last, alter the earmarks on two lambs, which plaintiff claimed as his property. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr G. H. Smith ( who appeared for the plaintiff) briefly outlined the case and called the plaintiff Frederick Houghton, who deposed that on the 18th January, defendant notified witness that he (Wyatt) intended to muster his sheep Ou that day witness went to Wyatt’s place and found the sheep were in the yard. Andrew Eddie and Percy Bissett were there also. Went through the sheep and found two wet ewes ; also found three lambs with earmarks altered. WitnesH here described his own earmark and also that of defendants. (Drawings put in.) The lambs mentioned were outside of the court. Could not find the lambs of the two wet ewes found in tho yard on the 18th January. Defendant agreed to pay him six shillings for two lambs which be said he bad probably docked and earmarked by mistake. Witness then asked him what he intended to do with the other three lambs with altered earmark. Wyatt replied they were his own lambs. Asked Wyatt if he intended to sell them and he said “No.” Claimed the lambs but Wyatt would not let him take them away. Tried the lambs with the two wet ewes but they would not take to them. Saw Cornelius same day and in consequence of what he said witness went to Mr P. Quirk’s place. A day or two after he went to P. Quirk’s place at Hamua and found the three iambs which Wyatt said be would not sell. Wyatt's sheep were a different class of sheep to witness’. To Mr Toss will : Would not swear the lambs were his. There bad been an alteration in the earmark whoever owned the lambs. There was no ill-feeling between him and defendant. Had a difference with him about a fence line.

Re-examined by Mr Smith : Believed the lambs were Ins but would not swear to them. There was nothing to stop straggling sheep going from bis place into defendant’s. Wyatt admitted that be had cut the tips off the lamb's ears. Andrew Eddie deposed he helped Wyatt muster his sheep on tbe day Houghton inspected the sheep. Found two wet ewes and Wyatt agreed to pay Gs each for two lambs. Just afterwards Houghton brought up a lamb and said he could swear the earmark was his. Wyatt replied that the earmark was Ins own private mark. Heard nothing said about any other lambs. Had not spoken to Wyatt about the case. Cross-examined: Thought tha two lambs mentioned were paid for by Wyatt as probably belonging to the two wet ewes. Heard nothing Baid about any other lambs. Thought the whole matter was settled then.

P. Bissett deposed he was in P. Quirk’s employ and was at Wyatt's on the day Houghton was looking through the sheep. Witness and Eddie stood in one yard and Houghton and Wyatt were in another yard. Could not hear what they said. He and Eddie then went into the yard where Wyatt and Houghton were. Saw Houghton examine a lamb and heard him say “ I'll swear the earmark on that lamb is mine.” Wyatt offered Houghton Gs each for the lambs, which price was accepted. Took the lambs away same day. Got subpirna three days after.

Cross-examined ; Was standing with Eddie half a chain away from Haughton and Wyatt and could not hear what they were saying. The sheep were running about and bleating. Eddie may have heard. H. Cornelius deposed ho saw young Bissett about January 22ud, driving a flock of lambs. Saw two lambs among them with Houghton's earmark on. Tho sheep outside look hko the sheep he saw in the flock. Did not know of any earmark in the district like Houghton's. Houghton was working in a paddock close by and he told him he believed two of his lambs wero among that flock. The lambs were a different class of sheep to Wyatt’s, This closed the case for tho prosecution.

For the defence Thomas Wyatt deposed that Houghton was present every time last season when witness lambs wore docked and earmarked. Christopher Eddie was presont when he earmarked and docked the two lambs in question, Told him then that he would put on his own private mark which he had used for the past eight years, lied sheep in his flock now, of all ages, with his private ear mark as well us his registered car mark. Quirke practically bought tho lambs a month beforo delivery, an the 22nd Iloughtcn picked out two wet ewes and agreed to lake Gs apieco for lambs. Houghton then found those lambs w hich he had a gj-eal notion wore liis. Agroed to give Os each for thorn. Hud about a score of the same class of sheep. Tho sheep outside tho court were thruo he sold to Quirke. They were his and lie hud a right to sell them. Earmarked tho lambs outside the court on the Ist October last. Cliristopbe Eaddie was present. Crossexamined by Mr Smith Told Houghton that the earmark was his own nriyqtp mark wlpcli lie put on his stud sheep. Did not tell Quirke th-tt lie (witness! had hough' the lambs in question, (lid not know he was committing an offence in using and unregistered brand. Christopher Eddip deposed that on tho first of October lie held lambs for Mr Wyatt, lie took the points off the ears of the stud sheep, Both ears in all cases. Tliero wore three stud lambs (ewes). The three sheep were earmarked tho same as the three lambs he held for Wyatt. There were no marks on the ears of the lambs when Wym earmarked them.

To Mr Smith : Mr Wyatt told him that his private mark was two tips oil the ears for ewes and nno tin off for Wethers. NuVei- saw any other aheep of Wyatts earmarked like these three lambs.

Thomas Henry L’ratt deposed that ho had shorn for Wyatt for four years. Wyatt luu sheep that be calls stud sheep. Raid he rut lips oil' two oars of ewe lambs and elf one ear of ram lambs. This mark W yatt told him was his private e.i riiiurk Had sccu sheep in Wyaft s flupkear-

marked the same as those outside tbe Court.

John Harding deposed he was present at Wyatt’s yards on tbe Ist of October. Saw some earmarking done. Did not see bow tbe earmarking was done. No lambsdrsfied that day bad any earmark on. Knew for the past three years that Wyatt used a special earmark for what he called stud sheep, but could not siy wbat the earmark was.

His Worship then inspected the sbeep outside the Court. On resuming he said he had not been convinced by the evidence for the prosecution and he would dismiss tbe charge. He would not allow costs as tbe defendant was largely to blame for using an unauthorised earmark. Reid v. Gleeson, claim £ll 17s, which the plainl'ff stated he bad paid for a horse he bad bought from the defendant. Ho wanted his money back as the animal had been misrepresented to him. Defendant put in a counter claim for £9 7s for goods supplied and grazing. After hearing evidence His Worship gave judgment for £3 4s on tbe counter claim. Judgment was also given for defondant on the claim for £l4 17s. Both sides to pay their own costs.

Wyatt v. Heughton, claim £1 4s for fenoing. The plaintiff was nonsuited with costs 425.

Greville v. Walther 3 (Smith). Claim £2 7s for survey fees, After evidence had been taken His Worship gave judgment for the amount claimed with costs. £2 6s. Mackenzie (Scott) v. Kidd and Christiansen (Smith). Defendants were charged with assaulting plaintiff at Mangaramarama on the 25th January, 1902. Mr Smith, for defendants, entered a plea of Guilty with provocation. His Worship said he would hear a little evidence in order to obtain some idea as to tbe provocation. The plaintiff was put in the witnets box and gave hi 3 version of tbe affair after which His Worship fined each of the delendants 40s and costs.