RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2581, 26 May 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tins Dav. (Before A. 0. Strode, Esq-, R.M.)

Coventry v. Gray.—L2S ICs (kl for work ami labour done .Judgment by consent for the amount claimed.

West v. Boult.- L4O on dishonored cheque. Judgment by default for the amount claimed with costs.

Black adder and Co. v. Bryant.—Tj23 4s Gd. Judgment by default for amount claimed with costs.

Bacon and Meyer v. Collins and Solomon, adjourned until Wednesday next. Gray v. Coventry.—L3s 2s 4d. This was a claim to recover the value of a bill of exchange r.tired by the plaintiff at the request of

the defendant as acceptor. Mr Barton for the plaintiff, Mr. Stewart for the defendant. For the defence, it was attempted to he shown that the bill was given as part of a trust estate, the amount should have been paid out of that, [and that by the payment of the amount by the plaintiff it was cancil'.ed and could not be sued upon. Mr. Barton applied for a non-suit, and the plaintiff was non-suited accordingly. Gray v. Clarke.—L37 Ids, for 75 doors supplied and cartage. Mr Haggitt for the defence. Mr Haworth said, in October, 1807, ho received instructions from J. D. Clarke, at the Buller, to buy a number of doors, and in consequence he ordered them of Mr Gray, who forwarded them by the beautiful Srar. For the defence it was stated by affidavit that the claim had been sa* is lied by payment to Messrs Haworth at Hokitika, that there was no evidence of delivery of the goods, and the case arose out of the jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff was non-suited. Turton v. Miller.—L29 15s 9d. T!ic defendant pleaded never indebted. This was a claim for professional services in a trust estate, instructions regarding which were given by the defen lant. Mr Stamper produced two letters in reference to the case. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount with co Js. The plaintiff said his only object was to induce the defendant to exert himself to obtain the amount from the person in whose behalf the work was done.

Bennett and Wedderspoon v. Luens.—L4o 19s lid. less Ll4 15s sd, making a balance of L3(5 4s Cl. The defendant admitted the correctm ss of the amount, but said he was only a partner in the transaction. Judgment for the plaintiff by consent. .IUJJOMKNT. Wislnrt v. North.—His Worship gave judgment in this case as fo.lows: —In ;liis case it appears to me tliat there arc four questions involved. 1. Whcth r under the circumstances detailed, the det.mli n by the defendant of the plaintiff’s cattle amounted to an impounding. 2. If an impounding, was it justifiable or otherwise. 3. Whether the plaintiff’s cattle were illused by the defendant's servants or agents. 4. Whether any contract express or implie 1 ever existed between the parties for the use of plaintiffs b dl. With regard to the first question, I am of opinion that from the terms of the message given by tho defendant to the witness Allan, to deliver to the plaintiff, taken together with tlie detention of the cattle, afier they had been demanded by the plaintiff’s servant, and other circumstances connected with the transaction, the act of the defendant amounted certainly to an impounding. As to the second point—the quest!.u of avhether the land upon which the plamtiff’s cattle were trespassing was substantially fenced ; I find a considerable p eponderanc ; of evidence on this head in favor of the view taken by the plaint.ff, the evidence on the part of tlie defence being confined almost exclusively to that of the defendant himself and his sou Thomas, the latter of whom deposed to the fence having generally kept defendant’s cattle in, and they did not get out frequently. Of the other two witnesses who Were called on this point, one had not s icn the fence for a period of I ur mo ths, and tho other for two months. From this state of matters I have little difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the land on which the plaintiff’s cattle we; e found trespassing was not enclosed with a substantial fence, and therefore the act of the defendant in impounding the cattle was unlawful. As to the third question—the ill-using or otherwise of the cattle—tho only evidence as to what actually took place while the cattle were being driven out of the stockyard is that of the witness Allan on the one side, and Thomas North on the other; but tho state of the cattle when they were brought from the d:fendant’s premises, deposed to by other witnesses, is certainly strongly confirmatory of the evidence of Allan, and I am indued therefore to take his statement as the correct one. Upon the last question, lam decidedly of opinion, from the plaintiff’s own evidence and otherwise, that no contract ever existed express or implied, or an understanding of any kind between the plaintiff and defendant, for the use of the plaintiff's bull, and that therefore the plaintiff is not end tied to compensation for any advantage in this way derived by the defendant. The plaintiff’s remedy appears to me to have been in his own hands, by keeping the animal confined on his own land. Keeping in view all the circa in dances connected with the matters referred to, I am of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to the sum of L2O.

Judgment for the plaintiff, L2O, together with costs.