RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2255, 29 July 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day

(Before A. C. Strode, Esq., E.M.) Civil Cases. Howortli and Hodgkins v. Cargill and Thoneman. Mr Hodgkins applied for an adjournment of the case for two months, to enab'e Mr Howortli a material witness to he present. The adjournment was granted on the usual terms.

MdCallum, Neill, and Co. v. W. Allen. — L2B 10s, being L 5 for rent; (.2), the value of a house removed, and L 9 10s, costs of a previous action in the Court. Mr Tnrton for the plaintiff. This case was brought before the Court about a mouth ago, when the plaintiff/ was nonsuited on account of not being able to prove the removal of the building. His Worship could not allow the costs of the former action, as the nonsuit was taken on behalf of the plaintiff, ab hough he was prepared to have postponed the ca c e until the return of the witness P. Neill. A witness named Kidd proved the value of the building. John Mitchell said he saw the dof.ndmt with others take the building down and cart the material away. The defendant took some land of the plaiiuili md paid rut for it up to the 17th February He occupied the land after that time. Th re was a shed on the land which ho used as a pig stye. He hail not taken it away; it was taken away by Messrs Wilson and Birch. Ho had put up a house which he left on the ground Mr Neill was aub-lesseo under Messrs Wilson and Birch, The shed lie took away was only worth about 40s. In crossexamination, the defendant said when ho took possession of the ground, there was a shed open at each ciul covered with tin, which he removed in part. On behalf of the defendant, two witnesses were called to prove the value of the building. Crawford, a carpenter, valued it at Lls, and a second witness valued it at L 4 or L 5, when Allen took it down. His Worship said, before lie expressed his opinion upon the claim, he had something to say about the evidence given by the defendant on the Last occasion. He considered hj s conduct simply disgraceful. That a man having any pi eUnsions to respectability should dare to g> into that Court and be guilty of such, falsehood as he was on the last occasion, was most abominable. It had been sonoe/.ed out of him to-day that he had removed part of the building, and his own witness s.dd he saw him take it away. On the last occasion he swore positively he never touched it. A more del,berate and abominable falsehood lie (the magistrate) had never heard in that Court—and that, considering the falsehoods frequently told, was saying much. The defendant deserved prosecuting for perjury, and he felt inclined to order prosecution. Knowing Mr Neill was not in town to contradict him, defendant swore point blank he had never touched the building. lie warned the defendant to be more careful in future, nr lie would have to answer for his falsehood in another Court. Judgment for the plaintiff, L 25 and costs.

J. B. Blair v. J. Williams—Claim for L 75. Mr Harris for the plaintiff, Mr Macassey for the defendant. Tlie plaintiff is occupier of section 23, block 24, Otakia, on which is a shone ipiarry. The defendant is a contractor who had undertaken to put a cpiantity of metal on the road between Dunedin and Tokomairiro. As the quarry was convenient for obtaining stone for the purpose, the defendant asked that the quarry should be reserved for bis use. This was agreed to, but no specific arrangement (according to the plaintiff) was made as to price when the defendant took possession. The plaintiff then told defendant he should charge him LIOO, to which he demurred ; and ultimately the defendant agreed to leave it to the plaintiff whether he should be paid Lot) or L 75 for tbe stone. Plaintiff subsequently offered to settle the matter for L.'iO, but was only offered L3O. Plaintiff was also lessee of section 24, Fast Taicri, belonging to the Church Trustees, on which, without asking permission, the defendant’s men entered, knocked down the fences, and though remonstrated with, cut up the property, destroyed the grass, and persistently left the gates open. On the evidence of the plaintiff it appeared that a person named Hastie was partner with him in the land, and that whatever money he obtained for the stone would tie divided with him. Mr Macassey moved for a nonsuit, whiph was accepted on behalf ‘ of the plaintiff by Mr Harris. Several cases were not decided when our reporter left.