RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2229, 29 June 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This’ Dav, (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R,M.) Civil Cases. Brown v, Harris.—A claim for 20s, for money lent. The plaintiff was said to have met the defendant in the street at the time of the races, and asked ‘ ‘ What was his little name ? what fake he was up to ?” He meant by that what he wasgoing to bo up to at the "taoes. The game he entered upon was-'au illegal one, and was stopped by the police. TjTe had lost several pipes, and the money WW 'jpjvaiacs.d to purchase pipes to exjable him to "play, -He considered the plaiptiff had a share in the game'. Judgment for the plaintiff, LI, with costs. H. S. Fish v. John Symos.—L7 3s Bd, Mr Bathgate for the plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff. R. Hartley v. Alexander Campbell.— L2I 15s.—Mr Haggitt for the plaintiff, and MrtHarris for the defendant. Tb e plaintiff’s case was that he had purchased a piece qf laud subject to a certain road line. He had put up a fence between his land and of the defendant, but pqt it on the south side of the road, although the defendant wished it 6h the north side. By this arrangement the road became the property of the plaintiff in terms of the Crown grant, and as the road marked was never used, and another road was formed, the defendant refused to pay his share of the cost of fencing. The fence Vas' put up in aScdrdancc with the provisions of section '# If the Fencing Ordi'‘nance. Mr Haggitt applied to have the particulars in the plaint amended, as, although the notice to fence was irregular, no injstake* as to? the Me,. of fenge could’: be T9 this Mr Harris objected},.j*pd leave ayas refused, Harris, for the tlefeuce,Traded that was neither the owner nor the occupier of the sections mentioned in the particulars of deiuaiul. Thafrdbe fmee was erected between seption 32 and a road line, such road hue being now called 45 of block I; and thirdly, that tho defendant had never received any notice under ' the Fencing Ordinance of the plaintiff’s intention to ereejt the fence, and that he opposed the alteration iff the road line made Government. His Worship consideredJdhat the question of the right tq'the road line had nothing to do with the matter, snd Off the admission of the jdefe|>4anthe was not deceived as" to the line of feu,ended. : Mr, Harris interrupted his Worship, and said the ownership to laud was disputed. His Worship considered the land having been ! purchased from the Superintendent, the plaintiff was ‘ to he considered the owner. He did not think there was authority to charge an :occupier of adjoining land with cost of survey. That must, therefore, be Je- . ducted. Judgment for the r plaintiff, L2l, Davidson v, Donaldson. -jr-Lo 3s, for arreark of rent. Judgment by'default for the plaintiff. J. Mackay anj 4- F err Scoular. —Lli ,4s 0(1, -Mr Jif 'Keay fqr tlj.e jdaiutiff, and Mr, Bathgate for the defence.' For the defence, non-joinders, not indebted, and a set-off were pleaded. The claim was for •coal supplied.- Judgment, for, the plaintiff, LI 5 18s 6d. : There was another case by the same, plaintiffs, Yhich was decided in their favor fey consent.