RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2502, 22 February 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Casks. Mrs Cooper v. Mary Moody.—L2 Is 6d for goods sold and delivered. Judgment confessed. Newman v. Lambert.—A claim for damages, L 5 for trespass by the defendants’ geese whereby the grass in plaintiff’s paddock in Kaikora Valley was destroyed. Mr Stewart for the plaint! O’. From the evidence of the plaintiff it appeared that ho was owner of a paddock of about two acres sown with English grass which he purposed cutting for hay, but which was rendered valueless by the defendant’s geese. A witness named Gillon was called, whe snid he had sent the geese out of the paddock and had been informed that geese lived on nothing else but grass, but did not know it as a f ct. He kept about 50 ducks but as they were not chained both they and his chickens might have trespassed in the paddock. Another witness estimated the crop destroyed at two tons to the acre, which would have been worth L 5 a ton. He never heard the plaintiff say he had a “down” on tire defendant and would sue him for damages which would pay better than mowing the grass. The defendant did not deny that his geese had been in the paddock', hut attributed the suit to ill-feeling. Mr Cunningham, farmer, said that the English grass had died out, the ground was covered with Cape weed with very littli grass, and the crop would have been valueless. In his belief, had the grass been untouched, it would have been worthless. John Biggcrs, farmer, said the grass could

not have been cut for hay, as it was too short. Judgment for the plaintiff, L2, with costs.

Dixon and Jones v. Harvey.—L72, a claim by trustees for arrears due under a deed of separation of the defendant from his wife. Mr Stewart for the plaintiffs ; Mr Haggitt for the defendant, who pleaded not indebted and non-jurisdiction. Mr Stewart cited several cases to sh,w that the Court had jnrisd'ction. The execution of the deed in Dunedin was admitted. Mr Haggitt moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that there was no proof that the money claimed was unpaid—the covenant providing for payment monthly of LS 13s 41 until the sum of L4OO was paid. His Worship considered it would he better for all parties to settle the matter, and was prepared to say that in consideration of the redaction in the defendant’s salary and allowances since the deed was executed, LG a month would be a fair thing to accept in lieu of the L 8 13s 4d agreed upon. Mr Hagfitt read a letter from Mr Siewaro, suggesting that arrangement in favor of the defendant at a previous date. Judgment for the plaintiffs, further proceedings to be delayed for a week to give opportunity for private arrangement. Cray v. Gorman. —Li 2s 2d on a dishonored promissory no'o, wffh interest. Judgment for the plaintiff by default, L 4 Is, an error having been made on the rate of interest,

Fish v. Kerr.—L3'9s, for balance of account. The defendant pleaded non-liability. The plaintiff said that he received instructions from the defendant to do the work charged for. In reply to the defendant, the plaintiff said, in the first instance, the account was rendered to Mr Gore, who had a contract for some of the work. His Worship considered [the defendant had acknowledged his liability by part payment. Judgment for the plaintiff for amount, with costs.

Turton v. Roche.—L2o, for amount of account. Judgment by default for plaintiff.