AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume I, Issue 69, 16 March 1877, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuksday, Mabch 13, 1877. (Before Justin Aylmer, Esq., K.M.)

CATTLE WANDERING AT LARGE. C. Haylock was fined ss. and costs for permitting a horse to wander at large. H. Bayley was charged on the information of David Wright, with permitting two bulls to wander at large in a public thoroughfare at Le Bon's, on the evening of the 2nd March. Defendant pleaded not guilty. David Wright swore that at about 8 o'clock on the evening of the 2nd March he found defendant's two bulls and about 30 head of cattle near his land. He drove them on to the Cemetery road and left them there. David Wright, a son of plaintiff, corroborated his father's evidence. Henry Bayley, a son of defendant's, deposed that he saw David Wright driving his father's cattle along the road. The big bull broke loose twice some time back from his tether, but was immediately followed and secured. On the morning in question the bull was fastened to a stump with a 901b chain, which he considered strong enough to hold a team of bulls. The defendant said that the whole affair was a piece of spite on the part of Wright, and he trusted the Bench would regard it as such. Plaintiff said that it was not spite. His Worship.—l am sure it was not fo love of one another that the case was brought here. C. Bayley, a son of defendant's, said that it was about six weeks since the bull broke away from the stump, and that he had not been away from his tether since. His father's cattle was in the habit of going into Wright's paddock, which was not fenced. Cross-examined by Mr. Wright.—Your land was fenced at one time, but the cattle has broken it down. Mr. Wright said that there was no use asking the boy any further questions, for the poor fellow must do as he was bid. His Worship said that the case arose out of a neighbour's quarrel, and that the information had not been laid for the public good. It was evident that the cattle could have inflicted no possible damage to the thoroughfare, and as it was simply a neighbour's row, the case would be dismissed. OBSTRUCTION. Henry Bayley was charged by the Okain's Road Board with obstructing a contractor in work ordered to be executed under the authority of the Board. Mr. In wood appeared for the Board, and cited the clause of the Act under which the information was laid. David Wright deposed.—The tracing produced is a certified copy I received from the Land Office. A line of pegs were put in by me to define the road, which has been laid out 12ft. clear of Bayley's property. The Chairman, in company with Mr. Barnett, inspected the road, and authorised the expenditure of £5. Ben Yorgenten was employed by me to do the work on behalf of the Board. He went to work on the 12th of February. On that morning, while on my way to Okain's, I met Bayley going in the direction of Yorgenten. On my return I learnt that Bayley had ordered Yorgenten to desist working. I wrote Bayley the note produced. The pegs which I put in have been removed. Bente Yorgenten deposed.—The pegs were in when I started work. Bayley requested me to knock off, and I said if you give me a piece of writing to that effect I will. Bayley then told his son to " pitch" into me. They made use of very bad language towards me. They threatened to do me bodily harm if I persisted working. I have not received payment for the amount of the contract from the Road Board, and I estimate the loss that I have sustained through Bayley's interference at £5. Cross-examined by defendant.—You asked me who put me on to work, and I informed you. You said I should desist working, and I then took up my tools. You picked up a shovel to strike me. I did not threaten to chop you down with an adze. H. J. Chalmers deposed.—l am a surveyor. 1 know the road in question. I laid it out. I believe Bayley's land adjoins. All waste lands taken up before survey is subject to roads till the Crown Grant is issued. I put in the pegs, but not according to the tracing produced. The road runs through section 800. When the Crown Grant is issued, it will show the road as marked on tracing. Cross-examined by defendant. —I was aware that the lines given to me were the boundaries of your section. I received instructions from the Chief Surveyor to run a road through the land. Defendant contended that the land in question was his property, it having been purchased by him, and handed in the license to occupy, defining the boundaries. Mr. Inwood, in addressing the Court, said that Mr. Bayley regarded the matter in dispute as a question of title, but he would show that defendant was in no way justified in summarily ejecting the Board's servant off the land. It had been sworn on good testimony that all land previous to survey was subject to roads, and therefore defendant was bound to conform to the conditions of his occupation license, which plainly provides for the light on the part of the Crown to enter and take such land as may be required for road purposes. Had the obstruction been confined to the present case, the Board might have settled

the matter out of Court, but there were a number of cases going on just now in the Bays, and the Board was therefore anxious to gain an expression of opinion from the Court. He read clauses 16, 79, and 87 of the Public Work's Act, and asked the Court for the imposition of a penalty in order that it might act as a salutary warning to others. The Bench said that it was just possible that the land might contain a larger area than that applied for by defendant. Mr. Wright said that Mr. Bayley only applied for nine acres, and the land in his occupation actually contained 15 acres. The Bench held that the obstruction complained of had not been done maliciously, but through a want of knowledge on the part of defendant, who evidently was under the impression that the property was his. There was no doubt that the Crown had the power before survey to make roads through any land. The defendant must be particular not to interfere again with the progress of such like work, as the Act gave the power of inflicting a penalty to the extent of £50, but in the present case a nominal fine of 10s, with costs, would be inflicted. Mr. Inwood asked the Court to add damages to the extent of £5 to the verdict, as Yorgenten made that claim against the Board. The Bench said it had no power, as the information disposed of was a criminal one, and the question of damages would have to be made a civil action. SIMS V. H. MURRAY. This was an action to recover the sum of £4 for freight on stores from Akaroa to Mokomoa. The defendant paid the sum of £2 into Court, and disputed the balance, on the ground that the charge was excessive. W. Sims deposed that he had been engaged by Wood Bros, in June last to boat certain stores for defendant. When the freight was delivered to defendant, he informed him that the charge was £4, to which defendant made no demur. Dominick, boatman, deposed that he had been boating for a number of yeais, and that £7 would bea fair charge for a ton and a-half to Mokomoa. He would charge £4 for 25 cwt in a whale-boat. There was great risk in such work, many boats having been lost in the bays. Defendant said that if plaintiff named the charge when landing the goods it was not within his hearing, or he would have taken exception to the rate. He considered £4 to be an extortionate charge. He had been informed by Mr. Wright that £3 was the usual charge for 25 cwt. THACKEH V. S. HANSON. This was a judgment summons to^ show cause why a verdict amounting to £14 9s 4|d had not been satisfied. Defendant said that he had been incapacitated from following work for some time back, having broken his leg about three weeks after judgment was obtained against him. He was indebted to Saxton and Williams to the extent £12, and as he was working for them, no money would be forthcoining till that amount was paid. Therefore he could make no offer at present. The Bench declined to make an order under the circumstances, but reminded defendant that he would be liable to be brought up again. THOMPSON AND ANOTHER V. HEWER. Mr. Bushell, on behalf of plaintiffs, requested that the matter be allowed to drop, as there was no chance of getting anything out of defendant. The Court then adjourned.