RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2204, 31 May 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tms Day. (Befqre J. Fult.qn, Eyq., R.M.) Civil Gases. OiISTRUCTINO A GOVERNMENT ROAD, Cameron v. Wallis.—This wms a charge brought against the defendant for erecting a fence across a Government road. Mr Harris for the complainant. The road line w'as proved by reference to the selection map of the Government. Mr Harris said he was instructed not to press for a heavy penalty, as he had no doubt the defendant, on being convinced of the line of road being as described, would not persist in opposition to it. His Worship required better evidence of tbe read line than the dotted line on the selection map, and Mr ADC avail of the Survey office produced the record map. The record map on being produced, snowed only a dotted line, and it was stated in evidence the road had not been surveyed, His Worship said he could not convict on such evidence, and dismissed the case, (Before James Fulton, Esq., 8.M., and W. Fraser, Esq , J.P.) APPEALS. Briscoe and Co. against the award of the Dunedin Water Works Company, Mr Smith

for Messrs Briacoo and Co. This was an appeal by Messrs Briscoe against a water rate, claimed by the Water Works Company) on the sum of L 95, at which certain buildings in P.oud street were rated, which, for the purposes of their business, had been built and covered in by Messrs Briscoe alid Co. It was affirmed by the Secretary on behalf of the company that those buildings formed part of the premises in Princes street, oa which was charged water rates on an assessment of L 255. This was denied by the appellants, who stated that the premises were distinct and separate; that they were anxious and willing that the water should be laid on by tbe Water Company for the sake of insurance, when they would be willing to pay the amount of the assessment. Mr Smith, for the appellants, held that, inasmuch as under the 37tli Section of the Waterworks Company’s Act, the appellants were not liable to pay water rates until a block was surrounded by mains, they would stand upon their rights and refuse to pay any water rates for the Bond street property, or for any of the property if the claim was persisted in. Mr Dick, for the Company, hold that the water supplied to the Princes street property was used in common by the workmen in Bond street and Princes street, and that Messrs Briscoe and Co. had thereby rendered them a loss liable to the penalty of L 5 for each offence as provided by the 30ih clause of tbe Act. Mr M‘Neil,_ of the firm of Briscoe and Co., denied using the water in common as a rule, either for drinking or other purposes. The Bench considered that the remedy of the Water Company would have been to lay water pipes in Bond street, and that Messrs Briscoe and Co. were not liable for the water rates on the store in Bond street. The appeal was therefore sustained. John Logan v. Water Works Company.— This was an appeal against the water rate on a house assessed at Ll5O, on account of alleged excessive valuation. Mr Logan’s objection was that the bouse was rated at rack rent, and that the ground attached had no right to be rated. The Bench held the house and grounds to bo one property, and sustained the rata.