MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1249, 28 May 1886, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

ASH BURTON— To-Day

(Before Mr H. C. S. Baddeley, R.M., and Mr D. Thomas, J P.)

WIFE DESERTION

Charles Sraithel was brought up on remand charged with wife desertion. The case was adjourned for a month, the accused to enter into his own recognizance to appear when called upon.

CIVIL CASES,

Mitchell and Turner v. Byrnes—Claim £C> lid. Judgment for the 'amount claimed and costs. Ashburton Borough Council v. Bryson— Claim, £2 10s. Mr Crisp for plaintilTs. This was a case brought under the ")Bth section of the Bating Act. Mr C. Braddell, Clerk to the Council, proved the liability, and judgment was given for the plaintiffs. Same v. Skillen—Claim, £1 1c, 3, Judgment for plaintiffs. Same v. Halpine—Claim, £2 18s. Judgment for plaintiffs. Same v. Dunn—Claim, £k Ills. Judgment for plaintiffs. Williamson v. G. Harris—Claim, £,'i, damages for alleged trespass. Mr Wilding tor plaintiff, Mr < risp for defendant. The following evidence was taken J. 11. Steele said he was the proprietor of some land at Winslow, portions of which he had let to the plaintiff. He had not parted to any person his right to the seven or eight acres let to the plaintiff, and he could sell the land to anyone he liked subject to the tenancy of Williamson. On the plan produced a road was marked through the block, but he had not given permission to anyone besides the plaintiff to use that road, which was absolutely his private property. By Mr Crisp— Had cut up and sold land according to the plan produced at different times. Did not remember if there was a ploughed furrow on each side of the roadway at Winslow, and did not know that on the plains it was a common practice to indicate .roadways by a ploughed furrow.—At this stage an argument arose between counsel with reference to the question of whether the roadway had been dedicated or not. The Bench ruled against Mr Wilding. The plaintiff, however, said he was prepared to establish the fact that some of the private sections had been trespassed on, and it was decided to go on with the case, abandoning the suit for trespass on the road. —The plaintiff, D. Williamson, pointed out on the plan the parts of the land on which the defendant and his wife and child had trespassed. Plaintiff spoke to defendant, who said he would do as he liked. Plaintiff gave defendant notice, and had not seen him trespassing since.—The witness was cross-ex-amined some length by Mr Crisp. By the Bench: Witness estimated the amount of the damage he had suffered at £l. A number of questions were asked by Mr Crisp through the Benjih. It appeared that there were two slip panels on the land, both on roadways, and those were frequently thrown down by the defendant.—This was the plaintiff’s case, and Mr Crisp called the defendant, who said the road through the plaintiff’s land had been used by the peopje of Winslow for years past, and it was the means of access to his (defendant's) house. He had not crossed the land since ho had received notice from the defendant. He had never damaged the fence. lie had left the slip panels down when hejweut through because they were on the roadway, and he considered they should not be there. This was all the evidence. Mr Crisp addressed the Bench, submitting that the Court could do nothing in the matter of what the defen

dant had done on the roadways. The damage he had done to the private property would perhaps justify a judgment of sixpence or a shilling.—Mr Wilding replied, stating that his client merely pressed for a small judgment to put a stop to the practice of trespassing on his land.—The Bench said that they would give judgment for only a small amount in the present case, but the plaintiff’s right must bo respected, and if the defendant oame before the Court again he would possibly have to pay heavy damages. Judgment would be for 2s Cd. The Court then rose.