Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBURTON— FRIDAY.

(Before Mr H. O S Baddeley R.M.) CIVIL CASES W. H. Rule v ii <u)d J. Sprott, claim £40, and Same v Same claim £20 fot uamage to grass foo.'l etc., through defendant s aotion m c?mplt;g ou plaintiff a land at Pendarves. — Thare was a cross action, Sprott Bros, v W. H, Rule, claim £0) — Mr Putnell appeared for Mr Rule and Mr Wilding for Messrs ttprott Bros. — Evidence was given m the case by J. H. rtule, W. Pentson, and W. H. Rule, tending to show that defendants had damaged Rule's gras* paddocks by carting drays over . them, and that thoy bad also built a stack of grain m one of Rule's paddocks, thereby preventing the proprietor's sheep from feed ing. Evidence was given for the defence by H. Sprott and Alex Gordon. The first-named witness asserted that he bad a righc to v c Knlr's paddock, permission having been given by the freeholder, Mr Roberts, and both stated that no damage at all had been done to the land.— Mr Wilding contended that the question of title waß involved, His Worship having to decide whether Sr.r tt Bros really had a right to use the paddook. The case was, therefore, he argued, bey nd the jurisdiction of the Court Mr Wilding aIEO characterised the action as trivial, the result of spleen, and urged that if against him ou the quesli n of title, His Wirahip should give Rule the smallest ooin m the realm aa a solatium for the damage he alleged he had sustained ,'•- Mr Purnell denied that Rule bad taken action through any feeling of spite. His olient had sustained substantial damages, and he (Mr Purnell) contended he was entitled to recover a substantial sum. The Court adjourned at 1.30 for lunch. The Court resumed at 2 o'clock when the second case Rule v Spratt Bros, was opened. The plaintiff gave evidence at length respecting the loss sustained by him through defendants' sheep gettltig into a paddook of rape, clover, and rye I grass. — The witness was crossexamined by v r Wildintf at considerable length with refe: ence to the tt*t9 of the dividing fences. [Left sitting.]

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AG18870401.2.12

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1522, 1 April 1887, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
365

MAGISTERIAL. Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1522, 1 April 1887, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL. Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1522, 1 April 1887, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert