RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. This Day.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 2011, 15 October 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. This Day.

(Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. M'Eweu v Thomson: The defendant was summoned to show cause why he had not satisfied a judgment of the Court for L 5 6s. The bailiff of the Court said tbe defendant had refused to pay, and although he had wages to receive from the Corporation, he hacl no goods nor chattels on which to distrain. His Worship ordered the money to be paid at once, or in default the defendant to be committed to gaol for a month. Keenan v Bowden : LIT 10s Bd. Mr Wilson for the plaintiff'. Judgment by default for the amount. Bathgate v Douglas : L 6 3s, for 123 yards road metal, obtained at the Gleu Quarry. Judgment for the plaintiff by consent. Zeal v Medor : LIG 12s Id. Mr Wilson for the defendant ; Mr Haggitt for the plaintiff. Mr Wilson said that the defendant had made an arrangement with his creditors to pay them 5s in the pound, in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act, 1567 ; and that the plaintiff’s dividend was lying for payment to him at Mr Ward’s office. '1 he deed of composition was agreed to in August, and three months was allowed for its exccu-

tion. Mr Haggitt replied that the deed was merely a covenant not to sue provided os in tho pound was paid within a month ; but the defendant had not tendered the money within the time specified, nor had the plaintiff executed the deed. It was therefore no protection to ths defendant. Mr Wilson said tho deed had been signed by creditors claiming three-fourths of the value of the amount owing, and he therefore contended the defendant was entitled to protection. —His Worship said that the conditions of the deed had not been compile 1 with, and therefore it was clear, as the amount of the debt was not disputed, he must give judgment for the amount. Judgment accordingly. Nicol v. Thomson.—A claim for Ll4, balance due on a horse sold. The ease was undefended. Judgment for the amount claimed by default. Mears v. Hassel.—This was a claim for L 5, damage done to tho property of the plaintiff through a shed and a quantity of earth settling down, projecting over the plaintiff’s property, and pres-ing a fence .so much out of tho prrp m iicular as to render placing it in an upright position impossible. Mr Stewart forthe plaintiff, and Mr Barton defence.-—The plaintiff said : I occupy for tho ground in High street adjoining Mr Hassel. There is a dividing fence. The fence was parallel with High street adjoining Mr Kassel's property. It was of Hobart Town palings, and was on the ground when he bought the property. It was not a good fence, having been forced out of perpendicular nearly 45 degrees by Mr Hassei’s shed, rain having run from the latter and m ule the place a bog. In consequence the posts had rotted and the fence sunk. In cross examination, the plaintiff said when he bought the property he had to take the fence down in order to claim ths ground on which the defendant had trespassed. It was not impossible to put the fence in its original position. The fence was leaning over when he purchas.-d the property. Mr Hassel said those who occupied tho property previously had pulled the shed out of the perpendicular through attaching a clothes line to the shed. When complaint was made the defendant endeavored to remedy the trespass by employing a carpenter to put it straight. The roof of the shed projected over his ground, and water from it dropped on to it. The trespass on his land was 14 or 15 inches, and that was increased by tho spouting added to remedy the inconvenience. Mr Barton read a letter from the defendant in reply to a demand by the lawyer of the p’aintiff stating that the damage complained of was increased by the unskilful action of the plaintiff, after the trespass complained of had been remedied. Mr Taylor, who formerly owned the property said he put up the fence on entering upon the occupation of it. Mr Hardy, who gave evidence as to the position of the fence and shed, said he thought the effect of rain dripping from the roof was remedied by the spouting, but the trespass was increased. The shed was more an eyesore than positive damage. Mr Thomas Rcdmayne stated the present position of the shed and fence. Mr Barton, for the defence, contended that the plaintiff on purchasing the ground, purchased all the existing arrangements with it. In reality it was a question of title, and not of mere trespass. Mr Hassell said he hid been six or seven years in occupation of the adjoining ground. The fence was there when he took possesion of the property. He built the shed within the fence on his own ground. Ths Gnce and shed were caused to lean over by the servant of Mrs Stafford attaching a clothes line. Mr Mears altered the fence and loosened the earth, which caused it to lean over. He the witness had altered the fence-twice; once before and once after the commencement of the action. For the sake of peace he had had the shed cut abmt twelve inch s off. The former occupiers preferred that water should run off tho roof, as it had bene fitted the garden. Mr Mears then complained of tho additional encroachment by the breadth of the spout. He had complained of having had three currant bushes destroyed. John Hill, agent for Mr Proudfoot, described the property. Mr Lanseigne never found the draining from the shed a nuisance. The shed was put on Mr Hassell's land, and had been removed further on to it.

John Mills, in September, was more than a day in putting the shed aright. It had been leaning over about eight inches. He described the alterations made.

George Hewitt, carpenter, described what was dona to the shod.

His Worship said it was a trifling matter between neighbors, and it was a pity that it had been brought into Court, lie thought the defendant had done all he could to remedy causes of complaint. Judgment for the defendant; each party to pay their own costs. [Left sitting.]