RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, CLYDE.

Dunstan Times, Issue 832, 29 March 1878, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, CLYDE.

Thursday, March 28. IS7S. ■(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., R.M.) Gilchrist v. MtNally - Claim, L 9 wages. This -ease had been adjourned from the two previous Court days for tho attendance of Mr Baird who, defendant said, had purchased his interest with all liabilities in the claim on which the labor had liecn done. The witness not being in attendance, and the defendant admitting the justice of claim judgment was given for amount claimed and ■costs. >■■■.• J. Holt v. C. T. Collins.—Claim, 1,2 ss, costs and charges paid for releasing cattle wrongly impounded by defendant. Mr Wilson, for defendant; plaintiff conducted his ■own case. Evidence was taken as to the nature of fences enclosing tho ground from off which the cattle were impounded, and same being proved not to bo in accordance with the '“Fencing Ordinance.”—Judgment was given for amount claimed and costs. Marie v. Holt.—Claim, LIC, for damage done to growing crops by defendant’s cattle, on Jan. 27th and 31st, and Feb. Ist. Both parties were unrepresented. Plaintiff gave evidence of the trespass on the 27th January, and produced witnesses in support. The I defence of defendant and witnesses was ! piirely on tho amonnt of damages.—The ! Magistrate said there had been no attempt to shew that the trespass was not committed, . the defence had been mere'y on the amount of damage; there was no doubt the cattle had trespassed on the 27th January, hut nothimg had been proved as to the other dates. He would give judgment for L2 iOs ! costs.

j WARDEN’S COURT. 1.. F. .T. Wilson v., I!, Naylor. - -This was a ! friendly' suit, applying for a fine in lieu of j forfeiture of water right, for neglect of rci iteval of'certificate. The evidence proving that the right had been in use oil the time, but that the renewing was neglect. A tine of 5s was inflicted, and new certificate to issue. F. J. Wilson v. Marie.—A similar case to above.—Fined 2s Gd, and fresh certificate to issue. Feraud v. Oliver.—This was an application for an injunction to stay defendant from interfering with a tail race, the joint property of both parties, in so far as preventing a flow of water on to plaintiff’s properly. Defendant contended that he had not interfered with the flow of the water originally granted to flow in the race, and only interfered with water that he individually had been allowed to divert into it. The Warden pointed out that there was apparently some misconception on the part of defendant. A tail race had no special water, whereas a head race had, the contention, therefore, was not good. The question to decide was one of rights between the parties, and he had a doubt if the defendant had a right to interfere with the race in any way to sflcct the interest of his partner. He would take time to consider the point, and would adjourn his decision till Thursday next.