AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 2, Issue 197, 7 June 1878, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, . June 4. (Before Justin Aylmer, Esq., R.M., and E. C. Latter, Esq., J.P.) , Civil. Cases. r. noonan v. ,r. m. taylor. This was a claim for £4 15s balance of an account. The sum of £2 6s had been paid into Court, the defendant objecting to pay the remainder. Judgment given for plaintiff for amount claimed with costs. H. H. FENTON V. AKAROA AND WAINUI ROAD BOARD. This case had been adjourned for the production of skilled evidence to shew exorbitancy in the plaintiff's charges. Mr Duxbury defended the case on the part of the Board, and wished the plaintiff to be placed in the witness box.

Mr Fenton, cross-examined by Mr Duxbury, said the plans presented were prepared by him, and were correct. The bringing of the question under tho Public Works Act was not contemplated when the plans were done. A minute of the Board, dated 28*h July, was here handed in and read to the effect that the work was required to be done asquickly as possible to allow tbe Public Workß Act to be brought into force. Mr Fenton stated that this did not affect the case, as he was not at the time competent to do work under that Act, and the Board knew he was not qualified to do so.

Mr Duxbury denied this. The Ber.ch understood that the defendants were arguing on the ground that the Public Works Act iequired that the Engineer should have a certificate. Mr Duxbury said no, the object was to get the plans, &c, signed without having to send them up to the Chief Surveyor.

After some further discussion, Mr Duxbury asked the plaintiff if he would sign the plans, and upon receiving an answer in the affirmative, said that in that case the Board would go no farther with the case.

Judgment given for plaintiff with costs of Court, each side to pay its own witnesses expenses. , . | Mr Duxbury objected to the judgment carrying costs, as it was owing to the plaintiff's clerical errors that the caae had to be adjourned. The Bench howevor maintained their decision. Mr A. C. Knight, J.P., here took his Beat on the Bench. R. CURRY v. J. E. THACKER." This was a claim for £84 89 8d for extra work done in building the hotel at Okain's Bay. Judgment given for plaintiff for £30 10s 2d less £10 14s, being the amount of an account due to tbe defendant, and allowed by th« plaintiff. L. LEVALLIAKT V. Q. BREITMEYER. Claim for fencing, £7 10s. The plaintiff Btated that a fire which had orignated on Messrs Saxton and Williams land, had come through to his property and destroyed his fencing. The fence burnt was between himself and some land owned by Messrs Breitmeyer and J. Brown. He had spoken to the defendant who had told him to put the fence up, and Williams would pay him. As this was not done he had served the usual notice on I Breitmeyer, and now sued for the recovery of hie share of the value of the fencing. The defendant said the land was not his, be had nothing to do with it. It belonged to J. Brown. The Bench non-suited the plaintiff on the 1 grounds tbat plaintiff had sued the wrong ' man. He had his remedy against the owner of the land. MRS G. A. ORORN V. MRS M. BROTJQH. Claim, £13 18s lOd. The defendant repudiated the account, and urged that the items were not given. Mr G. A. Oborn, who appeared for the plaintiff, asked for an adjournment, which was granted to allow of the items being entered. Adjourned to tho 11th inst.; The Court then adjourned.