RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3068, 27 April 1881, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Wednesday, April 27. fßefbre Captain Preeoe, R.M.) THEVCOMMISSIONER OF CROWN. I/ANDS V. T. KENNEDY. The defendant in this case was charged on the,information of Corneleua Tuely, a ranger, with being in unauthorised occupation of a portion of Grown land in what is known a» the Te Baroto Block. Mr Ootterill appeared for tbe plaintiff, and Mr Lascelles for defendant.

Mr Lascelles said his client pleaded not guilty iih so far as being knowingly in wrongful occupation. He had lately ascertained that such was 1 the case. Pour years ago; his client was put-in possession by a man named Cox, who was a leaseholder. The boundaries of the Crown land were altered in 1876 or 1877, and the altered boundaries took in a portion of thellandcin the occupation of; the defendant. i7-Mr ; ;^/6tferiH,was; instructed to press for the full penalty, namely, £5. He would put the Commissioner in the box, and show that his learned friend had been wrongly instructed when he said tljat it was only, recently that his client _ad'; received nbtiee to quit.. .; By his; bbstiriacy the Government had" been put' to considerable; expense.;, . ~;; ■■■■,• .••..: r Mr J. T. Tylee, sworn, said he knew the defendant." He had received a letter from him in November last asking that he' might remain on' the land; He' (witness) explained to him that it was Crown land, and he had not the power to permit him to remain, and he could not extend the time.

Crops-examined by Mr Lascelles: The .defendants house, was on. a portion, of the'reservei : He was warned in 1878 that the iand belonged to fhe Grown. McLascelles: asked that the defendant might be examined. T. Kennedy, sworn, said he had been ,ia..occupation-of the land since September, 1877. He obtained it from Cox as a !>resent to occupy until the expiry of his ease. Tbe first intimation he received was from Mr Locke in 1878 that he was on a native reserve, and that he must; come to some arrange.ment about it. In : November last he received his first notice to leave. He then wrote offering to pay; a rent. He had been one of the con-; stables of the A.C. at Te Haroto, and had been placed in charge of the reserve officer? reserve was _6t the same then as the one now claimed by the Crown. The boundaries had been altered. The first boundaries had been pointed out to him, and those boundaries did Dot include the land of which he had been in possession

His Worship said the Court, was of opinion that the defendant should have left the land when he received notice.' By remaining he had laid himself open to a penalty. He-would, not inflict the full penalty,' 1 DUfra substantial one.' Defend dant would be fined £2 and costs, and counsel's fee of £1 Is.

Mr Laecelles wished io point out that there was no provision for a counsel's fee. i Mr, Cot'tenll said if an objection was raised to this he would ask the bench to inflict the full penalty.

Mr Lascelles said it was a most improper and indecent thing for a dissapointed solicitor to" ask the bench to alter it's judgment. Mr Cotterili said it was the learned person who had interfered while the Court was giving judgment. Mr Lascelles said he was only asking the bench that the judgment should be in accordance with the Act.

His Worship said defendant would be fined £2, with £2 6s costs, and the ranger's expenses 26s 6d. The Court then adjourned.