RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2279, 26 August 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., E.M.) Civil Cases. EXTENDED JURISDICTION, Macdonald v. Sloane. —L 32 4s Od, for goods supplied. Judgment by default for the plaintiff. Bland and Long V. Walkhurst. 9s 9d, for balance of account for drawing a number of piles out of the bush. The defence was that the plaintiffs had drawn several piles that were not according to a prescribed size, and contrary to defendant’s instructions. His Worship said there could be no defence to the action. Not a word was said in the contract about the size of the pile s , and tracks having been made to afford access to them, the plaintiffs had ni alternative but to draw them. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount, with costs. The defendant asked time to pay the money, hut it was objected to by the plaintiffs, and his Worship declined to interfere, as there were such facilities afforded by the bankrupt law for evading payment. Guthrie and Asher v. Randall.—A claim for L 23 on a dishonored bill of exchange. The defendant pleaded insolvency. Judgment for the plaintiffs, L 23 and costs. Andrews v. M‘Mci!<an.—L49, for damage done to certain sections, containing 605 acres, in tbo Dunedin and East Taieri districts.

Mr Bathgate for the plaintiff, and Mr Harris for the defence. Air Bathgate stated the case, and citod authorities to show that the defendant was liable for damages. He especially referred to Addison on Torts, pages (j, l()2, kc. The plaintiff said that he occupied land at Alosgiel, and that it was now fenced, excepting'that it was open at the roadways. He paid rent for it. The date of his agreement for the land was October 6, 18(59. The plaintiff called on the defendant in November aud December, 18(39, and unformed him that he had leased the property, and wished all cattle to be removed from it or payment for .agistment to be made. He afterwards advertised to that effect in (he Olmjo Witness. His cattle had also suffered from promiscuous breeding of the defendant’s cattle with his own ; as being a dairy farmer, he wished to preservo the ppre Ayshire breed. The cattle of the defendant were not finally removed until the beginning of July, 1870, being full six months after notice had been given to remove them. The defeudent consented to pay a reasonable sum for grazing, he believed 6d a head per

week. W. Harold, a boy in tbe service of the plaintiff, confirmed his evidence. James Baton, in the service of the plaintiff, gave evidence to the same effect. Cattle from Green Island, Halfway ;Bush, and all the neighborhood, could get on to the land. A fanner named Todd said that young stock to which attention had been given for special purposes—for dairy purposes, for instance, would be ruined by being allowed to breed too early or with inferior stock. Young heifers for dairy purposes, had been sold as high as L 8 to L 9. Air George Forrest gave evidence as to the damage. For the defence the rate of agestment per head was agreed to, but the number of cattle depastured was disputed, and with regard to the alleged damage through promiscuous mixing of stock, it was pleaded that since the land was open to eleven if not twelve public roads, stray stock from different districts had access to it, and therefore there could be no proof that the damage was traceable to defendant ca.ttle. It was further alleged that the plaintiff was himself in great part to blame as his heifers hadfrc'iucntly broken down a fcnccandcnticod defendant’s bull to follow them, and thereforeby his neglect he had been a party to his own wrong. In cross-examination the defendant stated that he considered about fifty bead of cattle belonging to the plaintiff might have hr eu an hour or two altogether in his enclosed paddock, and that for the dam ages done to his fences and grass he was entitled to L 25. Although the plaintiff complained in November and December of damage done to his cattle he (defendant) never complained o' damage done by plaintiffs cattle until June, He should have complained had he thought the case woukl have been brought info Court. Mr Bathgate called attention to Addison on Torts, page 2C4, showing that a plaintiff was entitled to re 'ov» r damages from any one of a number of co-trespassers. There was a cross-action which at this point was agreed to be taken before judgipept was given. „■ M'Meikan v. Andrews. _ L2fl. Mrs M'Meckan, wife of the plaintiff, proved that the cattle of the defendant had previously broken into plaintiff's enclosed paddock. It was mostly calves, from six to twelve months’ old. James Souuness, owner of section 25, bad given to tbo plaintiff the exclusive right of pasturage over that section. The boundary line was fenced with

a good fence. He had complained to the defendant of his pattle trespassing on that section until within the last eight days. The g mind outside the section was open to cattle from the surrounding district. He had.never complained about the defendant’s cattle trespassing until about eight doys ago, nor had he made any claim upon him. HiWorship, in giving judgment, assessed the damage done to Andrew’s grass, in the case of Andrews v. M'Meckan, at LS ISo Cd, and compensation for damage done to the stock through the bulj. hpjng sjt lapge at L 5 ; and in the second case, M'Meikau v, Andrews, for the damage done.to the grass, the plaintiff was entitled at L 5. Judgment accordingly. Mr Macasscy applied for a postponement of Blair v, Williams, and Blair and others v. Williams, which was agreed to by Mr Harris on the part of hia client. The case was postponed to Monday week. (Loft sitting.)