RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 3608, 24 April 1886, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

«- TEMUKA— Wednesday, Aruir, 21st. (Before J. S. Beswick, Esq., K.M.) TnESPAsaiNO nf pubsbit op game. Robert Lavery was charged on the information of A. M. Clark with having on Sunday, tho 18th instant, trespassed with dog and gun on the lands of tho said A. M. Clark, at Arowlienua, m pursuit of game. Mr Aspinall nppeared for the complainant, and Mr Lynch for tho accused, who pleaded not guilty. Aficr briefly stating tho naturo of tho case, Mr Aspinall called A. M. Clark, tho complainant, who said on Sunday last, while driving through his property at Arowhenua, ho heard someono Buootiug on it, and spoko about it to the overseer. Three Bhots wcro firod, and ho saw two men with guns. Tho ovorseer went to see who they wore, and told witness. Witness had advertised that trespassers on hh property m pursuit of game would be prosecuted. Thero were haves and pheasants on tho property. Lavory and Horubrook, a shepherd, were together. Mr Lynch said that the defenco wa3 that accused had leave and licenso to trespass through llornbrook being complainant's shopherd. To Mr Lynch witness taul ITornbrook had boon his shepherd sineo August last, but ho hud never received permission to shoot on the property. They had a dog with them, but witness did not know whether it was ilornbrook'a. John McColl, overseer to tho last witness, said when he heard the shots fired on Sunday ho went to tho paddock m which they had beeu fired. Accused and llornbrook had three hares and a swamp-hen m their possession. Witness did not sco them fire. Shooting was forbidden on the properly, but he had nevor told llornbrook not to shoot. Hornbrook had ono of his sheep dogs with him. That closed tho complainant's case. Thomas Hornbrook, shepherd, said ho had permission to shoot on Cole's land, and was there with Lavery. As ho was going to Teuiuka ho asked Lavery to go across the paddock with him as ho wanted to catch his horse. Witness was not aware that an advertisement had been inserted about trespassing till last night, and thought that as ho was v servant there was no harm m his shooting on his master's land. Ho had never received any instructions about it. He had often shot at night after work, and no objection was ever made. To Mr Aspinall witness said he did not tako the cheep dog to hunt hares. He took it with him to round up any sheep that might have got through tho fence into the road. Eobert Lavery, the accused, said Hornbrook asked him to go with him as he wanted to catch lr's mare. He did not go with the intention of shooting. Never had permission of Clark to go on the property, yomo ehots were fired. The Bench said it was a clear case of trespass, and that it must be distinctly understood that servants had no right to shoot on their muster's property without permission The accused would be lined lOs and costs. Thomas Hornbrook wus also charged with the samo offence and pleaded " not guilty." Accused, m answer to a question, said it would spoil a good sheep dog if he were allowed to go after hares. The Bench intimated that it would rcservo its decision m tlmeaso for a fortnight, as to whether it was a trespass on tho part of tho servant. POLICE CASES. Qoorgo Hamsay and William Campbell were charged with drunkenness and fined 5s each. Bees Thomas, for allowing 10 pigs to trespass on the railway line at Winchester wbs fined 20s and costs. CIVIL CASES. K. F. Gray v. E. Ilannagan— Claim, £4 ss. Mr Aspinall for tho plaintiff. Forbes Gray, clerk to the plaintiff, proved ihc cluiui, and judgment was given for the amount claimed with costs. Siegcrt and JFauvel v. T. Burke — Claim, £6 15s. Mr Tosswill appeared for the plaintiffs. After Julius Siegerr, ono of the plaintiffs, had proved tho cluim, dofondant disputed a number cf items m tho account. Judgmont was given for £G 2s 9d and costs. Aspinall v. Heffcrnan. Mr Tosswill applied for a rehearing m this caso on tho ground that when tho case was brought on a fortnight ago and adjourned, defendant was under tho impression that it was adjourned for a fortnight, whereas tho case had come on again last week and judgment had been given m his absence Mr Lynch for tho plaintiff contended that as tho defendant had appeared by his solicitor he was virtually there. Tho Bench after some argumont with counsel refused to grant the rehearing, and gave costs against tho defendant. That being all the business tho Court rose.