THE SHEEP TRESPASS CASE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XVI, Issue 5568, 13 September 1889, Page 2

THE SHEEP TRESPASS CASE.

HIS HONOR'S JUDGMENT.

Tin-; case heard at the Supreme Court yesterday, and the evidence of which was published fully in the Hi;i;ali> of yesterday, was a claim of Ll5O damages for trespass. The plaintill's were Raniera Alienata and others, represented by Mr Hues, and the defendant, Mr G. C. Orinond, represented by Mr J. W. Carlisle, of Napier. The evidence adduced showed that Mr Ormond occupies the greater portion of the Mahia Peninsula, and that for three or four years he occupied a block of 33C3 acres on the peninsula known hs tlie Ngututarau block. The plaintiffs had cittle depasturing on the block for many years, and they being of an inferior .stamp and very wild, Mr Ormond desired that they should not mix with his stock. In October, 1887, Mr Ormond gave notice to the natives that they must remove these animals, and they stat ; ng that they had no land to remove them to, he granted permission for the cattle to run on the block till July, 1887. In August, 1887. the native cattle were still running on his land, and in that month Mr Ormond desiring to muster he ran into his stockyard at Wangaweni the whole herd, and there drafted the native cattle from his own. The native cattle were kept in the stockyards from 3 p.m. to 11a.m., and then Mr Ormond put them on to a piece of land known as Kaiwaiti, where they would not mix with his own stock, but from which place they could escape across the isthmus to the mainland. Mr Ormond stated that there were 51 of the native cattle, and 46 of these he let loose on Kaiwaiti, five being too wild to drive from the stockyard. The plaintiffs claimed that they had 80 cattle running on Ngututerau prior to August, 1888, that Mr Ormond's action in removing the cattle amounted to trespass, and that they had suffered damage, inasmuch as they had only been able to find fifty head. Mr Ormond, by allowing the cattle I to run on the Ngutarua for such a long time prior to 1888, had practically given license to their remaining there, and his action in removing them without proper notice of so doing and without warning that he would impound them if the natives themselves did not remove their herd, whs <i trespass and damaging to plaintili's. It was also .vttompfced to show by brinying in evidence that the murdered man Gollan, shepherd of Mr Ormond's, had stated .something that Mr Ormond intended to remove the cattle to the pound, but didn't.do so. His Honor, Sir James Prendergast, gave judgment for defendant. He was not at all satisfied plaintiff had any lief or license at any time except from October to July to run the cattle on Mr Ormond's land. Mr Ormond was perfectly justified in turning them off his land, and he had no need to t:ike particular care in so doing. But he did take care with them. He might have sent notice that he was about to remove them. The number which Mr Ormond took from Ngututerau was the number he had sworn to, that was hardly contradicted. The natives had not suffered any damage from the interference with the cattle. Mr Ormond had surely a right to muster his own cattle and draft them from the natives. The question was what could he do with them after that ? He was perfectly justified in turning them off anywhere on another person's run or where they could not get food. They suffered no damage and there was no wrong done. Had there been a wrong done a nominal verdict would be given. Judgment was therefore given with costs on tlie lowest scale. The natives must have well known that they suffered no

wrong,