RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ROXBURGH.

Dunstan Times, Issue 621, 13 March 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ROXBURGH.

Tuesday, March 10. (Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., R.M.) Cocker x. MTherson.—Claim 16/. This was an adjourned case, on the application of defendant, to give him an opportunity to produce certain receipts. Defendant failed to appear, hut telegraphed to some friend to ask for a [further adjournment ; but, as no satisfactory rea'ou was assigned why a further adjournment should he given, the Court took the case into consideration, 'and (gave judgment for the plaintiff. Dunclly v. Briggs.- Claim for 51., for damage to fence and trespass; This is a case in which 'judgment was reserved on the point that, as holder of a miner’s right, defendant claimed the [right to depasture on certain Crown lands, which’Vould have the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court held that it was neces-

sary for defendant to show a prima facia case, and that he had failed to do; or that, a miner’s right, as defined by Clause 6 of the Gold-fields Act conferred no real privilege; and that, althnuah by Clauses 14 and 105 of the Act, the Governor might he said to have the power to give holders of miner’s rights that$ privilege, it must he shown that such power had been exercised before the Court con’d consider the question of jurisdiction raised. The defendant not having done so, the Court must consider the case on its merits, and gave judgment for plaintiff for 20s. and costs, remarking that the evidence as to damage was unsatisfactory. Beighton v, Cornish. Claim 41. 18s. Tins claim was for rent of a billiard table, the subject of previous action in this Court. Plaintiff intimated his desire to withdraw, and had served notice to that effect on the defendant just before the sitting of the Court, and on the case being called on, defendant’s solicitor, Mr Monat admitted having receved notice from plaintiff, but said cl efendant having' incurred expenses, he could not allow the case to he” withdrawn without costs. The Bench said as there was no provision for withdrawal of cases Under the Be sident Magistrate’s Act and as it appeared just that ‘defendant should have some expenses, treated it as a case where the plaintiffs had not appeared, and as defendant had not admitted debt, gave judgment for defendant for 2U. and costs. Brighton v. G. Lancaster. Claim, 21. 11s —Judgment for amount and costa. Tubman v. p.irss. Claim, 51. c s„ service of an entire horse—No appearance, settled. Tubman v. Fer.sherstono. Settled. Dnnnelly v. Briggs. Cl aim 201. This was rather a peculiar case, being for use, By permission of certain ground.. Mr Monat appeared for plaintiff and Mr F. J, Wilson for defendant. Mr Wilson made a preliminary plea on improper service of summons, on the-ground that defendant was only served on Saturday at fi, pm. for appearance on the Tuesday following at 11, a.m. ; forty-eight hours had not elapsed, as Sunday was a dies non, and could not bo considered, and urged that if it were hold otherwise, a defendant could always ho prevented from putting in a set off, or to make aiiy of the preliminary pleas of infancy, bankruptcy, d-c., which required twenty-four hours notice by the Act. Mr Mouat urged that the service was complete, and cited a case Drury v. Taylor, hoard in the Supreme Court when it was belli in so far as regards appeals, Sunday was a day: On this point the Court reserved judgment, and proceeded la hear the evidence, which was to the effect that plaintiff was holder of some land-under an agricultural lease, and had allowed defendant, a packer, to acoommnliiue himself and-his.horses on the ground, aud now wanted to put a stop to the privilege and to make him pay for it. An attempt was made to go back beyond the mite of the lease, under some agreement; hut, as defendant’.'! counsel intimated he should raise a point of stamp duty, it was not persevered in. Plaintiff put in lease ana some other papers. Defendant’s counsel said he did not wish to raise question of jurisdiction of Court if ho could help it. Tue first objection he had to’ make to the plaintiff’s case was'there is no evidence the defendant had squatted within the ground de.ic.ii ed by lease. Plaintiff's counsel now withihew lease, as he would not go to the . expense to prove this, and would rely on lus possessory title. Mr. Wilson said he weuid now raise the question of jurisdic'i"u, as he would claim as good a title as plaintitf The Bench said, until the preliminary plea was considered; no decision could be given. Case adjourned.

WARDEN'S COURT. 0 - M'Lachian v. Angus MTherson and anodier. Application for cancellation of certificate on the ground of abandonment. - o appearance o" defendants, and service fore 1, The Court adjudged tbe ground forfeited, cancelled tbe certificate, and declared tbe ground to be open for application. About a dozen other mining applications ■"■ ere disposed of.