RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. ROXBURGH.

Dunstan Times, Issue 617, 13 February 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. ROXBURGH.

FKBRtTAnY 10. (Before W. L Simpson Esq., R.M.) •I. Beighton v. Cornish. Claim, 451., :6st of a billiard table said to thavo been ajtild. . Frqm the evidence adduced it was siiovvu that the sale was subject to a lease, vyhich has not yet termina'ed. Plaintiff applied for a nonsuit which was gran’ed. Dennis Casey v. W. Honor and anr. Assault. No appearance ; struck out J. Dunnelly v. Briggs. Ciaim, 51, da. mages sustained to fence and crop by defendants horses. This is a caso where the Plaintiff Dunnelly squatted some six year* ago on Crown Lands, nod enclosed a few acres, but never sought any other title but a possessory one ; the giouud ap. peared to be within ten chains oi the Moly. nenx, and the defendant Briggs claimed the right to run his horses therein by virtue of bis miner’s right, averring tnat the plaintiff had no title, and the ground being within ten chains of the livirtWas reserve 1 for_mining purposes. Mr Mouat who appeared for plaintiff contended that possess!, n was sufficient title against any wrong doer, which defendant was, ami that it was’ouly on Crown Lands a miner was entitled to deoaslure, which this piece of ground was not, as it was s!ill subject „o the pastoral tenant’s lease, and as to the ground being a reserve, so far as he could fmd there had l ean no proclamation, but thsrehad been a promise tnattbe 'iovetnment would not alii nate any ground within en chains of the river.

The Bench remark 'd that the production of a mi .er.a right By defendant, raised the question of it!e, and must i.hrow it out of - he jurisdiction of the I’esideut Magistrate's Court by'the Gold Fielda Act sec 14 and 105, a certain right was conferred upon holders of a minor's right to depasture on Crown' hands. The B nch said judgment was r-sived on !ha» p. iut. and said that it must fall on the defendant to prove tne land was Crown i.ands. Crawford v. M,Phe son. Claim, 10/. Defendant paid 51. i to Court. In evidence it came out that *his was a balance of an old account betwe-n the partis, who ir a, • poared Ind had subsequent transactions, and it was doubtful if there was not a balance due on these transactions. The Bench remarked that the plain ff ought to have brought the whole of the accounts into Court, as it was not known but' lie might at a. me future time bring further actions, and to split up the cause of ac ion was against the rules of the Resident Magistrate’s Court. The defendant admi'ted indebtedness in soar ■ four or live pounds, and said be had receipts to show that plaintiff’s accounts sere wrong. The Bench granted an adjournment-, and ordered plaintiff to render a lull account between him and the defendant, and defendant to produce receipts. Nieolann v. Kennett. Claim, 21. Settled out of Court. There were two other cases, but no appearance of either party, they wore struck