RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume VII, Issue 1136, 1 October 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before.M. Price, Esq., R.M.) FORCIBLE ENTRY. W. L. Rees, Timothy Bresnahan George Banks, and Henry Luke, were charged that they did on the 18th September, this present month, forcibly and with strong hand enter into a certain messuage, called " Te Hapera," of which Robert Cooper was then possessed for. a oertaiu term of years, being an indictable offence. Mr. W. Brassey for the plaintiff ; Mr. W. L. Rees for self, and Mr. Ward, junr., for defendents. Yesterday. The evidence of Charles Rice, who was called by Mr. Brassey, did not vary much from that given by the previous witness (Whinstone). Rice was in the Hapera residence at the time, when he saw Mr. Rees come up and enter the house. Mrs. Cooper waa afc the time alarmed at his appearance. Rees saw Mi\ Maude, and said to him, "What are you doing here 1 This is my property. If you you do not go out, I shall have you put out." Mr. Maude, in reply, said " I am not aware this is your property." THIS DAY. The case against Mr. W. L. Rees and others, for forcible entry, was proceeded with. Mr. R. Cooper having been called and sworn, deposed : I am the prosecutorin this case. I have been residing at the Hapera for seven or eight months. I have been paying rent for that property. 1 waS requested to take possession of the property by Mr. MacFarlane, one of the trustees in Read's estate. I was also requested by Mr. E. ff. Ward to take possession. I was residing there on the 18th September last, . Application has been made to me by Mr. Rees to deliver up possession. I instructed you (Mr. Brassey) to write to Mr. Rees. I was afc the Wairoa on the 18th September last. I did not know, on leaving for the Wairoa, that any steps were to be taken. I returned from the Wairoa on Tuesday, about 3 o'clock in the morning, in consequence of a telegram I received bearing reference to their having taken possession of the property. I have beon bound over to keep the peace. I went to the Hapera when I came back, and found some of ray furniture turned out of the house. I have since been prevented from taking possession. I have paid rent t© Wi Haronga, who leased me a portion of the property. On Tuesday I morning, when I returned, I found two men in possession. I ordered them out ; they refused to go. I asked them their right to be there ; they said they had been put there by Mr. Rees. Had I not been bound over to keep the peace, I should have made an attempt to put them out. Cross-examined by Mr. Rees : I said if I had been there when they came in to take possession, that a man's house was his own castle, and that I would have brained the first man that attempted Ito come in. I did not tell Tim Breshnahan that he had better clear out ; that there were men coming on Wednesday who would shoot them. My family was forced out of some of the rooms ; they could not now cook or do anything. They were forced to leave through being in terror — afraid, that is my wife and others. I left not through terror, but because you had possession, and I could not get in again. I left the place as usual to come into town with my own accord. I did not take my family away. I told Luttrell that I objected to his taking possession, that I had a right there, and I was perfectly willing to contest my right according to law. He (Mr. Luttrell) never entered the house, he occupied through the day one of the outbuildings. Breshnahan was working in the paddock adjoining making a croquet ground. He never came near the house. I have not seen him place locks on the gates. I saw him drive a spike in and I stopped him. Some three months back two men came into the house, but they never stopped in the house. I have a lease on the property other than the agreement made by- -Mr. E. ff. Ward.

Examined by Mr. Ward : I was not there at all on the Saturday. This evidence completed the case. The Bench then proceeded to state that in: this case they would not call upon the defendants. His Worship said, however reprehensible the proceedings disclosed in this case may be, and I am satisfied that no law-abiding people will uphold such conduct. Yet, I am of opinion that the evidence adduced has not made out a prima facie case sufficiently strong to bring it within the meaning of the offence — forcible entry — which, in law, is a breach of the peace. The case was therefore^ismissed. BREACHES OP THE SHEEP ACT. ORBEL V. LOISEL & COOKE. Mr. Brasaey for plaintiff. This was a summons case made by the Inspector for a breach of " The Sheep Act, 1875." Mr. Orbell being sworn deposed : There are 3,500 on the run according to returns. Messrs Loisel & Cooke have not received a clean certificate. By Mr. Cooke : You had notice to clean your flock. I only know that Mr. Campbell told me that you had received due notice, and it appears so from the butt of this block of book. The Bench having enquired from the plaintiff'as to whether or no the defendants had been making reasonable exertions to clean their sheep, stated that he believed they had done so. Mr. Sheratt, Assistant Inspector, deposed : I inspected the flock on the 9th July. I found- one scabby^ sheep, being one of the flock belonging to Mr. Loisel. Cross-examined by Mr. Loisel : I only saw the one scabby sheep. Mr. Cooke stated that he was not at all desirous to make any statement further than that they had endeavoured to do all they could to clean their flock, and it would appear that they were to be encouraged by being summoned. Fined £43 15s. and costs of Court. E. Orbell v. D. Douall. In this case the defendant pleaded guilty, but stated that in reference to the number of sheep on his run, and as appearing on the return made in May last, he could bring abundant proof that great losses had occurred and he did nofc believe that now, " though the number shown on the return was 15,000," that he would not be able to muster more than 12,500. "Very great destruction had occurred through dogs, wet weather, the season, &c, and he was positive he was correct in his estimate as to loss. Fined £156 ss, or in default distress to issue, or 3 months' imprisonment. E. Orbell v. J. Seymour. Mr. E. ff. Ward appeared for the defendant ; Mr. Brassey for Mr. Orbell. Mr. Ward, as counsel for the defen dant, stated that every endeavour had been made to free the sheep. The plea not guilty was entered. Mr. Orbell, being sworn, stated.: The flock, numbering 9470 have been an infected flock for the last 9 months. Due notice had been given. I inspected the flock, and I found them scabby. 1 feel satisfied shat Mr. Seymour has done all that he could possibly do to clean his flocks. From my knowledge, as Inspector, I think it was possible to have cleaned the flock, but I have not given them a clean certificate. Mr. Seymour being sworn, deposed : That in reference to the number stated last shearing I had 8,400 shorn. I don't think I have 8000 sheep on the run now. lam shearing now, and am in a position to judge the number of sheep 1 have on the run. I guessed the number 9470 appearing on the return, but have lost very heavily since. I believe I have lost 1500 sheep s : uce last return. I am sure that I ii .vo not now on the run over 8000 sheep. Fined 3d per head, £100, in default of payment distress to issue, or three months' imprisonment. E. Okbell v. Pjercival Barker. Mr. E. ff. Ward appeared for defendant ; Mr. Brassey for plaintiff. Mr. E. Orbell sworn deposed : There are 7,000 sheep on the run. They were inspected, and a notice was served on the 2nd July last. I found scabby sheep. Examined by Mr. Ward: I do not recollect Mr. Barker making a declaration that his flock were clean on about the 30th July. I gave him lately a herding notice to keep his flock together, and not to allow them to stray. I believe he has endeavored to clean the flocks as far as possible. Percival Barker, being sworn, deposed : About the end of July last, Mr. Orbell and Mr. Sherratt came and inspected the flocks of sheep belonging to me. Mr. Orbell found no scabby sheep amongst the flocks, but said he could not pass them without they were, mustered. I agreed to muster them. Mr. Sherratt was there nearly a week and inspected them. I think it was about the end of July. He found no scab, and the sheep was passed by Mr. Sherratt. I signed some declaration at the request of Mr. Sherratt, that my sheep were' clean, and I understood it was passed. Since then I have received notice that my sheep are infected. I have not the notice with me, but I swear I have received such notice. Mr. Sherratt, Assistant Inspector, deposed : In July some sheep that I saw that had been lately dipped bore marks of scab, and Mr. Barker could not then have been entitled to a clean certificate, for the Act requires a period of three months from the last dipping to occur ei'e the flock can be declared clean. I saw a sheep whilst on horseback I believed to be scabby, but will not swear do. Fined £82 103., or in default distress to issue, or 3 months' imprisonment. E. Orbell v. W. K. Chambers. Laid under the 26th Section for allowing, contrary to the Statute, the rams to mix with the ewes for about a period of 14 days. Mr. Sherratt, being sworn, deposed : Mr. Chambers' run in an infected rnn. I have seen 5 rams amongst the ewes. It was on April the sth I saw them. Since then I have seen rams in the flocks. From the number of lambs I am sure that the rams must have been there 14 days. Cross-examined by Mr. Chambers : I do not know that the rams were yours. I have known 100 lambs to be gotten by one ram in one night, and I think it therefore possible that 5 rams could have gotten 500 lambs in one night. I do not know the rama were yonr property. Mr. Chambers in defence stated he

had together with his surrounding neighbours received permission to breed, and had therefore as he considered not been iv any way guilty of a breach of the Act. Were Mr. Campbell present he would be desirous of producing him as a witness in reference to the permission given to breed. Fined £10, and costs.