RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 1054, 21 September 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

* ASHBURTON— To Day. (Before H. C. S. Baddeley Esq, R.M.) CIVIL CASES. Borough Council v. Hugo Friedlander, claim of L 8 6s, for rates —Mr Crisp appeared for plaintiff, and defendant appeared in person to support his case.— Charles Braddell, town clerk, produced the valuation roll to show that defendant was the registered owner of the property at the time the rate was struck. When the demand for payment was made the premises were unoccupied. In crossexamination witness stated that notice had been sent to the occupier, Mr Martin —Mr Friedlander, being sworn, said 'that according to section 53 of the Act the occupi r of the house was the person to pay the rates He thought that it was only fair that when a man enjoyed the privileges attaching to occupation he should pay the rates. It was rather arbitrary on the part of the Council to sue him for the rates, without making some attempt to obtain the money from the proper quarter. He had no objection to pay the rates if it was shown that the occupier had been requested to pay it.—His Worship recognised that it was a hardship for Mr Friedlander to pay this money, but the Act was explicit and gave authority to the Council to obtain payment of rates from the owner of property. Judgment would be given for the amount claimed. . . Nicholson v. Bartlett, claim of L 3 19s 6d, amount of rent alleged to be due for a cottage.—The plaintiff having given evidence to the effect that the House in question was the property of his wife and that it had been occupied by the defendant for a space of 8 weeks at a rental of 10j per week, Mr Wilding asked whether he let the house to Bartlett. On witness answering in the negative, Mr Wilding said that he was clearly entitled to a nonsuit. Mr Crisp submitted that this was not a Court of pleading, and the fact that the house was occupied was sufficient. If his Worship thought otherwise he had the power to amend the information, so as to make it apply to use and occupation. The information was accordingly amended, and in response to Mr V. ilding plaintiff said that the house had been let by Mr 0. Branson. The section had been brought in 1881, and was always the property of witness’ wife. The defendant was called and said he occupied the cottage, which was let to him by Mr Branson, who he understood was acting as agent for Orphin and Richmond. Was ready to pay the rent to the proper person, but did not recognise the plaintiff in the matter. Cross-examined : Had received a letter from Mr Ward offering a guarantee to defendant that ho would not be a>ked for the money again if he paid it to plaintiff. ivfr Crisp said that Richmond would have no status in the Court, as the property had nothing to do with him. Nicholson

was the only person authorisei the rent, and iudgaifept for the plaintiff. Judgment was givenfor the amount claimed, but no basts were allowed. .•> Tasker v. Quigley, claim L 8 Is lid.— Mr Wilding for plaintiff; Mr Crisp for defendant.—This was a claim for meat alleged to have been, supplied to the men I engaged at a machine,belonging to defendant. —Mr Tasker gave evidence that for two weeks he carried on the business of the late Mr Martin for the benefit of the widow. Found defendant’s name on the books and continued to supply him with meat. When asked lor the money, Quig- I ley said thft he had paid the men off, and 1 that he was not going to pay the account. Did not know whether either Primmer or Butler had been paid any part of the ac*. 1 count. Quigley had two accounts, one 1 for the house and - the other for the machine. Other evidence having been 1 heard, His Worship said that there was no proof that the defendant had ordered the meat, and that therefore plaintiff must be nonsuited. 1 Argyle v. Hussey, claim of L2O for the loss of a horse.—Mr Wilding appeared

for plaintiff, and Mr Purnell for defen dant.—The circumatancei of the case as disclosed by Mr Wilding were that a horse belonging to plaintiff was employed on Mr Coster’s farm, which adjoined the land of defendant. A mare belonging t plaintiff had strayed on to defendant’s land, the dividing fence having been removed, and had eaten some poisoned whet, which caused her death. He called the following evidence : —Win. Argyle said he was engaged on a ploughing contract on Mr Coster’s farm. Thirty horses were employed on the work, and it waacustomary to turn them out at ! the end of the day. The fence taken down 1 extended for a mile. There was no fence there when witness commenced the work. The horses were turned out on the 29th August, and on the following day the mare was found lying dead on Mr Coster’s land. Witness traced the mare’s footsteps from the place where defendants poisoned wheat was lying. There was a fence between the road and the land, but the gate was open. Considered that the mare was healthy on the day previous to her death. Opened the animals stomach, and found therein some wheat, which he took to Mr Neate. Valued the mare at L2O. She cost LIB about three years ago, and she was nearly seven years old at the time of her death. Had an interview with Mr Hussey after the mare died, and he said he did not care if all witnesss’s horses had been poisoned, and that he expected it long ago. —ln answer to Mr Purnell, the witness admitted, that the fence had been taken down- for the purpose of its being re-erected. Had permission to turn his horses on Mr Coster’s land, but not on Mr Hussey’s. Could tell Iris mare’s footsteps, although he had over 30 horses on the ground.—Charles Neate, chemist, said that defendant had been supplied with 1501bs of poisoned wheat by order of the County Council. It was poisoned with strychnine, and a pint of it would suffice to kill a horse. — James Corbett and Richard Bolton were called to give evidence as to the value of the mare. The one estimated her at L 22 10s, and the other at L2s.—Mr Wilding intimated that his case was closed, unless the other side desired evidence as to whether the wheat was poisoned, and, in that event, he would ask for an adjournment in order to procure Professor Bickerton’s analysis—-His Worship said that that would be goad reason for an adjournment, and if he thought the evidence was necessary he would agree to do as Mr Wilding suggested.—Mr Purnell submitted that there was no case to answer. The plaintiffs horses were, according to the evidence, trespassing on Mr Hussey’s land, and if the mare were poisoned by the wheat as alleged, no claim could be justified. —The Court decided to hear evidence, and after the adjournment, Mr Purnell called James Hussey, who deposed that he was a farmer, living at Lauriston. His land adjoined that of Mr Coster, and the boundary extending for three miles. Ha * only seen the plaintiff once previous to this action. Witness had found Argyle’s horses trespassing on his land, and he knew the animals because they were half clipped. Had warned Argyle not to allow his horses to go on his land as there was poisoned wheat there. When plaintiff came to witness, after the death of the mare, and asked him to make good the loss, ho refused because he considered he was not liable. Told plaintiff that he wondered the whole of the horses |had not been killed, because he had warned him about it. Obtained the poisoned wheat from the County Council. If a horse took a small quantity of wheat of any kind, it would probably founder. Mr Coster was sowing wheat at the time. To Mr Wilding : Dressed wheat with blue vitriol and not with strychnine. The wheat in the paddock was sown broadcast. Did not see the bags after the mare was dead. Mr Coster’s wheat was sown in the paddock close to where the ploughing was going on. Had fed his horsesj on crushed wheat. When ha warned Argyle he referred to the blue stone wheat —George Clark, a laborer living at Rakaia, remembered Argyle ploughing Mr Coster’s land. Plaintiff had bean frequently warned both by witness and Mp Hussey not to allow his horses to trespass. Remembered the mare dying and saw the body taken away. At that time the ground was ploughed and witness did not think it possible to trace a horse’s hoofs in it. Valued the horse at Ll 4 To Mt Wilding : Did not hear Mr Hussey say anything to Argyle’s man about poisoned wheal.—Timothy Cronin gave evidence as to plaintiffs horses trespassing on Mr Hussey’s wheat. Valued the horse at Ll2 or Ll3.—Robert In wood gave similar testim ny. Counsel I on both sides having addressed the Bench his Worship said he would reserve judgment in order to obtain a certificate from Professor Bickerton as to the wheat. Judgment went by default in the following cases :—Friedlandor Bros v. Shepherd, L 7 10a sd; Matson, Cox and Co v. Johnson, LB 13s 3d. Ferrimau V. Low, claim of L 7 2s, for balance owing on a promissarySnote. —Mr Wilding appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Crisp for the defendant. —After evidence had been heard, his Worship gave judgment for the amount claimed. House Breaking. —Two hoys named James Wright and George King were brought up charged with breaking into the house of Mr Janjes Jameson at Wakanui, and remanded for three days. Breach of the Licensing Act. —F. L. K. Hill was charged with having allowed billiards to be pjayed in hip licensed premises within prohibited hours, —Mr Wilding r appeared for the defence, and argued that the case having been dis? missed last week on account of|a defective information it was not open to the police toro-ojren.it. His Worship took note of the objection, but decided to hear the evidence, which was precisely the same as given last week.

[Left sitting.]