AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume VII, Issue 650, 6 October 1882, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

luksDiY, Ocroiw; 4

IskmV)';e Jl'stin Aymihu, Hsq., R.M.. and W. B. Tus.swill and T. Adams, Esqs., .J.i r s.

MALICIOUS DKSTiiUOriON 0V PliOl'iJIUT.

Tiios. Whelch whs ch-srgod with w:inici'y destroying a fence, the damage done beijfg to Hie extent of 20h. Mr Gγ. Harper appealed for the defendant. Charles A'ger, sworn, said : I reside in a house of Mr Penlington's in L tvaud street. I siw defendatit in front of the house- about hall-past 12 sit night on Saturday week. I hid had to set up to finish :-.,'■!■,• vvork till Sunday morning. A man ii imed Tavlor came ii) and wanted mo to change a'cheque for £-3 Gs 6). When I.e. came in I looked out and saw Whelch

jutting'the fence. He afterwards ciine in anil snatched the cheque out of Taylor's hand, tearing a piece off. I then got hold of tiie. cheque. Whelch cut the fence will) a bill hook.

By Mr Harper: it bright moonlight. I s-'iw defendant out t'"R fence mybulf. i hud had no words with defendant.

V>y police : It might have heen only lOl't from the window to the fence.

Gorge S.-iddler, sworn, said : I remember Saturday week. I was in company with Wholch that night, and did not see l!ie oJllence committed. He could not have doiio it without my knowing it. We both wcni into Alger's. Tiie bill-hook was mine and I wan carrying him. I did not toll Constable Soott I saw Whelrh do it.

Constable Jr-cott, sworn, said : Saddler told me he saw Wholch do it, but thought he did not mean to do any nana, but was merely Dashing the time ..way. Mr IV-nlington said the damage done would «ost anoutiSl to put liglit.

Mr Harper addre-sed the Bench on belnilf t>li tiie accused. The action was kid under the Malicious Injury to PropeiiyAct. IJii'ifi , section 2o it was laid do-.vn that for aiirat otlionee the line could not exceed iis.

Tiie Bench lectured Whclch at length on hia general bad conduct, and fined him

401 and and oidere'J him to pay for repairs to the fence.

TUISsPA-'S,

C. M. Watkina was charged with trespassing on the property of A. C. Knight, damnges leing laid at £10. Mr G. II uper appeared for the prosecution. A. C. Ku'ght. Hworn. sail : I am in possession of section 15584, and I was on the day name lin the information. I have been-on that section since tiiat day, and noticed 2 pegs pi iced on my land, a litllo over half a eiriiti on my ecti<m «t either end. They hive the appearance of survey peg' without the G>venim<>nt mark. The Government mark has evidently l)i(ii cut oil:. My own pegs are sti;' in ih'-ir places. I never authorised Mr Witikins to g.> on my land, but I wrote to him after I foil ml th<i pegs, calling on him to remove the pegs within a week, lie took no notice of it. The letter pro- : diieed is > copy of t c one I S"iit. 1 have i hud Home tro'iiile with Ohirlos Bates a , out the noun liiry of lh« section. I did not see Mr Wntkina put in the peg myI eel!—.ny nun say < im.

By Mr Wulkins ; There is no other peg removed. The two additional ones are put in. The boundary lino between Mr Cites and in'; I) us lusen H'iVL'nil times altered. I hiVL- r eeived no notice of Govemm lit I am not aware if Mr iVite.s k' i\'i> you to go on the ground. 1 have got a title, a license to oC'jnpy, hot no Crown grant. The sect! mi wis bought as 33 acies. Very likely it has mord in it. I have not had it in writing from any .surveyor. There is no fence between that part of my land and Mr Bates' section. Your pug was over half a ehnin from the Government peg. , - , . Ido not know for certain that tho pegs you put in were Government There were old Government pegs lying about. One of the pegs you put in is along the boundary fence, between my land and others. It' it was on the boundary it was really on my section. It was on my section I maintain. It was on my side of the fence. It is the boundary between myself and Mr Enkcr. I have seen m> pegs oti Mr Baker's hide.

By Mr Harper : Tho sec ion pegs were put in at in} , expense. When the Government put thorn iti first, they did not givo so much land to B.iten ;ts lie has now, for out; peg diil not correspond with tho exact liuKage on his Grown grant, and at my request it was altered, so that there .should be no further dispute. The Commissioner of Crown L mds had settled the in .'Her. Robert Jarinotiy, a contractor, sworn, said : I know the "auction in question ; and nlso Mr Bate's and Mr Baker's properties. I know Mr Knight's pegs with the innrks of the Keciion on them. I know Mr Watkins. I saw him one , day in September put one peg in. It had a broad arrow on it. He put it on Mr Knight's ground along tho fence. It is about four 9 feet panels from the section peg. I saw him put tin peg in and yaw him cut the number oil'tho P e tfBy Mr Wutkins : Tne peg was lying on the ground. You di>l not dig it up. 1 told you it w.ts there. It was *i surplus peg ihro'.vn on one side, and had not been in ihe g'oiHhl. Tlii- p'g W.I-* Iγ 0.l a'-out Gor (Ji'H'hes o!0 the wire iiisiilo the fence, on Mr K'lighfrt side.

By Mr ilirtK-r: Idi I not see. Mr Watkin.s go up the hiil to.vanld Mr Knight's OlltJlll'T. Cli-rli-H BaM, h'.V'H'o, siiii : Mv .sm-ti'Hi

w>is nought I) years before the other, i i 1 DO. It. wis supposed to le G7 acres. h wmS I)..tight i-y M.' li. L).ilgli-h. I paid lor b'7 a-r s. In I.SSOit was n-nrveye 1, .Hill il was foiind lo be un'y G2 .■■crt-s. It ».v.-H then re-'itn veyc! Uy Mr M'-Nicoll, and '. wish to .-land lo Air M Xicoll's survey. nViiin-ss li-m drscii cii niiiutoly tho iiltenuioiis ih;it hull» en m.ulo) I had a warning to do no ten ing. as the I oundary win disputed I have hid no notice from GosT-MJinent saying that I could fence. I have not got so iiiui-h land by sft as was given to me by Mr MctfiVoll. I have not got my Crown grant.area, or chainaga according to Mr Uoughton's survey.

By Mr Harper: I employed Mr Watkins to suivey the land. He is a licensed surveyor, and I gave him instructions to a rvey and put in pegs. I told him not to remove existing pegs. It is a question of title. I did not nee the pegs put in by Mr Watkins. My section was hought and paid for six or seven years befoie the other. It was bought for li 7 acres, and was Crown granted in 1870. Mr Knight's section was bought for 33 acres, but it is really 40 aenjs. My l.md being bought first, I think I ougiit to have the full

acreagp.

.Vi. lM;tr, the Chief Su-vcyor, sworn, sni.i : I know the, wi ions 10,330 and 15,584. This is a cerlill-il copy of the Grown gnint. The chain :.<;•• is 32UU links north and 2950 south. Tiiest! boundaries liave recently been extended 113 Jink■» on otic side and 177 on the other. The northern boundary is., now 32 chains, and the southern 33 chains 7-1 links. The above ia a plan of the present survey This is a correct copy of the plan according lo Mr Uoughton's survey, now on the niip. Mr Bates does not get hi-t area, even with that corrected area, A re-survey w.is taken in that district. I told Mr U.iitflisli, o» re " surveying, tie had not his q>i.in«ity of land. I instrUcted Mr McNicoll in December, 1880, to put in pegs in accordance with the measurement in the-grant. Mr Knight objected, and I told McNicoll to put back the pegs till the question was decided. Then Mr Bates complained, and the matter was rui erred to the Cro.vn Lands Commissioner, who awarded certain measurements to be. adhered to. This settlement took Koni.! land irom Mr B.ilos, and did not give him his Crown grant linkages. Mr Knight objected to this, and at his request the whole «P<a was given to Mr Bates. There .was a differences of 8 links between tiio two survi y.-i. According to the Coni-mis.-iio ers , decision. Mr Bites only got Gl acres. Timt was all given by tho Crown jjrunt. The Crowii giant represented an iilipossible figure. By Mr Knight's concession Mr B.iles got G. 3 acres 3 roods and 2 perche.- , . This was granted to him at Mr Km'g-iu'ri request, oi.ti-.'rwia» Ujj Chief Co iiuiidriioner's award would have been strictly adhered to. Mr Watkins had no authority to survey t!u land from me,

By Mi- Watkius: I <lo not know if private surveyors have any right to go on land. In some oases right of way to the trig station is specially provided. The angles and bearings are wrong through the fault of the first survey. It might bo possibleto alter angles and keep to measure* iiient. It was so m to coins in with the existing fences that bearings were taken. The bearings were altered all round to adhere to fence lines. In the grant the

area is always stated at more or less. It' the iiiiyles Were larger, of course tiie area wou'd be increased, but we adhered to the fem-cN and Crown grant measurement. _ It a peg was ax ctly on the boundary lino, it would he hnlf on one and lnlf on the othc-'a land, not all on one It is not usual to give official notice that fencing may he done. In Sept. it was re-surveyed, giving Mr Bates more land by Mr Knight's - request. There would be no alteration of the Government survey map. It is usual to give Hie. area to llio first purchaser, but not when Crown grunts are given as they are always adhered to. The Crown grant was given in such a way as not to do away witli the fences. The other section •ins more "loind —enough for I'Oth —but the oilier s- ction is not Crown grunted. By Bench : Mr Right's Crown grant ~" wiil lie ia.MK'd at once, in accordance with the Commissioner's decision. If the Cmwn grant had not been i-.sued to Hates lie wou'd have been probab'y given the *> full measurement in equity. Mr Watkins said the Court had no jurisdiction as it was a question of title. Mr Harper smid he expected tin's objection to be raised, and lie was prepared to k prove it wns not a bona fide question of title, and that the Court had ju.'U<liction. The question of title must bo more than a tmggestive oi c to make it a Supreme Court case. Mr Knigiit was in lawful occupation of tin land, be had a license to occupy, w and the Chief Surveyor hud told him that a Crown grant was to he issued to him without any alteration being made. It wns clearly proved, too, that Mr Watkins had driven the pegs in on Mr Knight's land on one tide oi the fence. Mr Bates , chninage was in strict accordance with the Crown grant, but they were willing to acknowledge he had not the full area, ~ tl rough an" error in tie fiist survey. The only way to set right such an error wou'd have been to have the Crown grant can-

celled and another issued. Mr Watkins •* was a duly licensed surveyor, but he had not merely trespassed, but put in a peg, thereby making a claim, as it were, to the land, which was a serious matter, as it reopened an old sore, that Mr Knight had tried to allay by in.king a concession. Tlicie had been no vindictiveness shown, the trespass action being merely brought to settle the matter. Similar questions had

been settled in Courts hiving the same ... jurisdiction. lie regretted an amicable settlement had not been arrived at. The Bench said they would reserve •judgment till tlio lßtb inst., when Mr Bates' case against Mr Knight f< rdamages "* for trespassing on his land would be heard. Mr Bates said he hoped an ami< able Rirangement be ariived a> before tint dale, ai d further s-aved. Mr Harper concurred in the hope. The Bench said they would be flail to see such a course pursued, as it would be by far tho oust. CIVIL CASES. *• 11. N. Brodeiick v. John Williams. Claim £6 2s lOd. Judgment for amount ■claimed and co^ts.

Same v. John Soloinan. Claim ii' 2 14s i6tl. Judgment by default for amount •claimed and costs. The Court then ro=e.