WAS THERE A TRESPASS?

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 3981, 11 July 1913, Page 2

WAS THERE A TRESPASS?

SHOOTING ON LAKE REPONGAERE. AN INTERESTING CASE. A case of interest to sportsmen was hoard before Mr R. S. EJorance, S.M., yesterday, when David Peter Cameron (Mr E. W. Nolan) claimed from a young man named Percy Turnbull (Mr L. T. Burnard) the sum of £lO as damages for trespass on plaintiff’s property, known as 4H 213, Repongaere, with a gun, for the purpose of shooting the game there. Mr Nolan outlined the facts of the case in brief and dealt with the evidence that would bo given. The amount claimed for /damages :(£10) was reasonable under all the circum-4aui-es. David Cameron, plaintiff, said he was owner in foe simple of Repongaere, 4H 2B block, abutting on the lake. Three or four days before the opening of the shooting season defendant asked for permission to shoot on the lake, bur plaintiff refused, stating that as defendant had had leave on other ocasions it was fair to give someone else a chance. He advertised warning trespassers. Defendant was in his employ for two years previously. On Sunday, June 1. the day before the opening of the shooting season, he saw defendant in a canoe on the lake and also on the Monday at about noon he saw defendant in a moe-moe, about a chain and a-half from the shore, shooting. To Mr Bnrna>d: He would deny that the moe-moe was five chains from his shore. He was the owner pf 4H 28, and the Natives were the owners of the adjoining portion : also abutting on the lake. He did not see how defendant approached the moe-moe by means of his land or the Native land, and could not deny that the defendant prosed the Native land to got there. On the Sunday lie recognised Turnbull in the canoe, but he would not actually swear that it was Turnbull. “lis land and the Native land were, not separated by a fence, and each others’ stock grazed on both lands. Witness pointed out that Mr Hare’s ton-acre property actually adjoined his and that the portion of this adjoining the lake was raupo swamp and almost impassable. To His Worship : He would say that in order to get to where the moe-moe was any cue would have to cross his

David Cameron, yin., sax! that on the Sunday before the season opened he saw defendant taking his beat to the lake from Hare s property. This was about 9 a.m.. and witness spoke to Turnbull on the lake at about 11 a.m. At about 10 a.m. lie saw defendant and a companion cutting manuka on plaintiff’s property and carrying it to their beat. On Monday and Tuesday mornings lie saw defendant shooting in his moemoe, and on Tuesday saw him drawing the canoe upon plaintiff s property. William Cameron, another son of plaintiff's, gave similar evidence, and ..James Goldie added further corroboration. Ereapa Kerekere’s evidence concluded the case for plaintiff. Mr Bernard said that defendant was doing what he considered he was entitled to, in a perfectly open and legitimate manner. The lake was not enclosed in plaintiff's property. Plaintiff’s shooting rights were not like those of an English landlord, but his property merely abutted on the hiyO, along with other properties. < Plaintiff refused defendant* the right To shoot- and defendant receiv cd and paid for the right from the owners of the Native land adjoining. Even plaintiff. under cross-examination, did not infer that defendant had shot on hi* ■ propenv. The only thillg tout y*efondant did was to walk across plaintiffs unfoncecl lands, through which the Natives (from whom defendant had permission! habitually went, the same as plaintiff went through Die Na+ivo land. Counsel contended that defendant, as a ronresentnuve of the Natives, had full rights to cross plaintiff's unfonerd property, the same ns the Natives Bad. Percy Turnbull, grocer s assistant, defendant in the action, produced the written right from M'ake Ivermere to shoot on the lake. In gotms ,o the lake he wont with the- Nat .re through. Hare’s property, aim through a gate (of which the Native oad straight on to the lake. the snooting was done on the lake, about _ hve chains opposite Cameron « prorvU/u He out his manuka, in Hare Bros, property. . . To Mr Nolan: The witnesses who said lie rut the manuka from Cameron's property were wrong. _ . \ rthur Pilcher supported oitnntr.t s evidence, adding that he had permission from Hare Bros, to cut he manuka. . Takirikiri, a Native said tha L he gave defendant permission to shoot on Ronongaerm and took defendant with him when he went to shoot. I hey wont through Hare Bros’ property, and through Maori land on to the lake, camping on a portion of Native land. Plaintiff owned nine acres of the latter block, but it was not fenced off. He (witness) held the key of this •10-acre paddock, and he claimed that he had a perfect right to go through. Plaintiff sometimes put his stock in without asking for the kev. The lam: belonged to his sister, who was dead and the appointment of successors was before the Native Land Court. Mauhana Hokanau, of M aerenga-a-hika, cave supporting evidence. David Cameron, jun., recalled, repeated' that he saw Turnbull and Pilcher cutting manuka on his father s pr r Burnard emphasised the evidence as to the Natives' claim in respect of the ownership of the land, submitting there being a dispute as to title, there was no cause of action. Mr Nolan declared there bad been no evidence adduced as to any conflict of title. Quite apart from the unfenced portion of the block, lie contended that there was no dispute as to me fenced portion where the manuka was C \iis Worship reserved judgment.