MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1587, 17 June 1887, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

SOUTH RAKAIA— THUR3DAY. (Before Mr H. 0. S. Baddeley, R.M.) OATTLB ATLiBGE. For allowing a calf to be at large, W. Street was fined 7a 6d and costs, 7s. H. Ruttor, for allowing two head of cattle to be at large, was fined 20s and costs, 7s. W. Street was fined 7s 6d and costs 7s. for allowing a calf to be at large a Becona time. Police v. Osborne.— AdjourDt 1 for a month. CIVIL OASES. M. Brown v. J. Thompsom— Claim £1 17s for servica of a bull. — Judgment for £1 12s 6d, and oosts 6s, for plaintiff. William Anderson v. the inhabitants of the South Kakaia Road Board Piatriot — Claim £100 for treapass.-'-Mr Harper appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Holmes for the defendants. — The sum of £5 had been paid into Court. — Mr Holmes complained that full particulars of the claim had not been given — Mr Harper explained that he* claimed damages for a trespass m November by fenoing off a piece of land ; also, for keeping possession of the said land, and using it for the purpose of taking gravel np to the date of the bringing of the present aotion. — W. Anderson, plaintiff, lived at the Oust, and had a lease of the land m question, containing a purchasing clause at £7 per aero. The lease had 12 years to ran. His son resided en the property; knew nothing persoaally about the Board's entrance to the land. In December he observed an acre fenced off. The fence was a bad one. The land was m wheat crop. He also noticed that someone had matfe a large hole, out of which gravel hid been taken. Previous to this time he had received no notice whatever of the land being taken ; afterwards received tho notice (produced) from the Board. Up to date had not had any ngfl of tho land. Sis threshing return for the year's crop over the farm for the particular kiad of wheat (Pearl), was 44 bushels per acre, worth 3a 6d per bushel now. Had suffered much inconvenience through his sheep getting through the bad fence. — Mr Holmes objected to this question being gone into as the claim was for damage m November. — Cross-examined by Mr Holmes : The land was worth £100 an acre to him. There was no township there. He did not know what the Board required shiDgle for unless it was to ehingle the road . Hie son wa ) his manager. He did not know the road was to be ehisgled. He had never Been other pits on the road. He could not say if it required ehingling or not. He used the road, and it would be better m winter for metal. His son was his manager of the farm. His son never told him that he had signed a petition to have the road shingled, but he knew it now. His crop of 80 acres of wheat averaged 30 busheh. Mr Osborne threßbed it, and it was worth 3s Id at the Bakaia station when threshed. He wou'd not swear when ho threshed. Ho received notice from tho Clerk to the Board eo mo time m December ldat, before the 10th, and before he went to the land. (The witness hero corrected his previous evidence.) The piece of land fenced oft wan ton chains byone, Bad kept 200 sheep m a lOOacre etubble paidock for over three months. He did not know if he could swear it or not. He had not brought this caBO for a lark. His stubble land was worth 12s an aero for feeding, and he paid 8s an acre rent. Ho was never told he could take tho crop off (he aero. To Mi Harper : When ra'uiDj the land foi stubble feed he took into coafideraflon the time of the yep.-r when it was woi ill 12s. — Hugh M Anderson, sworn, said he was son of p'aintiff and 23 yeprs of age : was m charge of hh father's farm. He had signed a petition to, hava tho roac metalled. On tho 14th November the land was tenoed. Did not remember ho\* many buebGln oS wheat the land produced. —To Mr Holmes; Tho road badly required bhUißlingti The corner of a paddool is tho most convenient place for a bpllaii pit. Ho remembered beinp told ho con'c have the wheat off the acre, and saying he would not touch it. Mr Allan als( told him ho could bavo it. Before th< fence was erected Mr Makelg told him fh( land was required fora gravel pit. lot pit as it stood was m good position f oi supplying metal to a number of roads — E. W . Osborno remembered th/eshlng the crop of wheat, it ran about 42 bushels pei acre of Pearl. The land is good and the wheat was m good condition. — Crossexamined by Mr Holmes : The land wai worth £10 per noco. Stubble feed on auol land was worth from 8d to a Is pc aero. — This concluded the evidence fo; plaintiff. — Mr Holmes addressed the Bencl at length, and explained the Board'i aotion m taking the land after being re questioned by the ratepayera. Througl a contractor's error thofenco was ereotec a few days before a legal nolloa wat given. The property instead cf be'i£ damaged wm improved by the road beijg metalled. A. Makeig, clerk of the boprd eworn, remembered Anderaon, jnr, aign {ng the petition. He had told him the lr id would be taken for a pit. Mr Anderson wanted the pit taken off the Acton estate. The Beard had offered £15 for the acre, the same as given for other corner seotlone on tho sumo road. To Mr Harper : None of Mr Harrison's land hfd been taken for gravel. purposes, bui a corner Bection hid been taken from the N. Z. and Australian Land Company on the same road, The fence erected vraa not a good one. 7.ne land taken measured 5 chains by one. To (he Beach : This was the moat convenient place for a pit.— Henry Harrison, farmer, lived on the road shingled. It much improved the value of all the land. Tho coat of outting, s took ing and Btaoking a 42 bushel crop of wheat would be wo:.h lOjanaore, — h. H. Seoretan, agent for the N.Z.L. and Mercs n tile i^enoy Company, aald pea-1 wn worth 3s Id m February. Ifc would be worth 3s 4d now if a good sample. — F, Banniion, farmar and contractor, gave evidence— E. S, Coster, J. Dundan, L Oxl ey, were also witnesses. — Mr Holmes addressed tho Bench at corsidorablo length, and was sure that the £5 paid into Court much over covered any damage done. Only a nominal trespass ha i been committed, and the land had very much improved m value through the shinglirg of the road. — Mr Harper, on behalf of the plaintiff, addressed the Bench. He considered the trespass ss a most aggravating one. The Board had committed a trespnsp, and although it might have been done by accident, substantial dama; es should bo given — The Bench agreed with thoromarkof Mr Harper He had no doubt the Road Board had not acted m a high handed manner, but at the same time bug'; practices should cease, and he would give judgment for plaintiff for £5, over and above the amount, £5/ paid into Court, and solicitor's costs £1.

G. Lake v. B, Druey —Claim £8 10s, for goods suppllied . -—Mr Purnoll appeared for defendant.— There was a cross-action for £6 10s 4d. Both cases wore taken together. A letter was put m as evidence from Sydney, asking Mr Hardy to collect some accounts, statement enclosed, on which it was Bhown that 40a had been paid On account of a waggon, and no mention made of a signboard. Plaintiff denied that this was hid account or letter, and he had never authorised anyone to write it for him. A cheque was produced said to have been paid to Diuey but Lake swore that ho had never seen it before.— Lake swore that he had never had any. of the goods charged for by Druey.— Lake had no witnesses. — 0. A. 0. Hardy, remembered receiving the* letter and account produced from Lake. This was the only on 6 received. Had a conversation two daJB ago with Lake about thiß account.— A. J f Ho well recognised the cheque pjo-

duced, but he had g'veu Lake credit for it a short time before he left for Sydney. Produced books with entry. Pruey was with Lake when the cheque was given him to take care of. It was given to Lake by Druey and handed over by Lake. — Druey, examined, swore that he paid Lake for -the signboard 20s, and for harness 50s m May, 1886, by cheque produced m presence of Mr Ho well. There was a running account between him and Lake, and he (Lake) had promised . to send over, the balanoe of money owing to j him from Bydney . He had never bought any ohafl from Lake ; ho had never paid him money since his return, but he had lent him 6s lately.— On the two oaseß judgment was given for Lake. in the first case for £l 16a without coats. — In the case, Dmey v Lake, judgment would be for the amount claimed and costs, also solicitor's fee.— The Bench remarked that more barefaced evidence than Lake's he never heard, and it would requiro consideration whether a charge of another nature should not be preferred against him.