RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2841, 27 March 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Casks. Colieu v. MTndoe.—Claim for 10s, being money paid at the request of defendant. The defendant paid 2s (5d into Court, and

pleaded not indebted for the remainder. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount paid into Court. Jenkins v. Purvis.—L2 6s. Mr Edward Cook for the plaintiff; Mr D. Stewart for the defendant. This was 'a claim for excess o damage charged on two horses impounded. From the evidence of the plaintiff it appeared that, on the 12th March, two mares belonging to him were impounded by Mr Kidsley. of East Taieri, having broken his fence and eaten part of a hay stack which was in a grass paddock. They were two days in the pound kept by the defendant. LI was demanded for poundage fees, and L2 10s for damage, as charged by Kidsley. The amount, L 3 10s, was paid to Mrs Purvis. He subsequently applied to have the excess above the legal rate af 4s for damage refunded, but was told it had been paid to Kidsley.—ln cross examination by Mr Stewart, the plaintiff said Mis Purvis told him she would refund the money if he would obtain an order directing her husband to do so from a justice of the peace.—Mr Stewart, for the defence, held that a pound keeper, on receiving cattle to impound, got a note of amount of damage claimed, and was not justified in liberating them until such damage was paid, or an order was given to release them by the person impounding, or by order of a justice of the peace, on security being given, and that any action by Jenkins lay against Kidaly and not against Purvis. His Worship had more than once the question before his mind when cases of illegally impounding came before the Court, and he could arrive at no other conclusion than that the pound keeper was not to be the judge of special damage, and that the person claiming it did so at his own risk. The plaintiff was non-suited. Shaw v. Macdonald.—Mr. G. Cook applied that all further proceedings should be st dd absolutely, or until Shaw should have delivered to Macdonald possession of the land and premises for the value of which judgment was given, that damages might be reduced to 20s, or that the action might be reheard or a new trial had. Mr Stout for the defendant. His Worship stated that he had hoped to hear no more of the case Judgment was given on the understanding that the house should be given up, and ou that ground value was awar led. The defendant was ordered to give up possession of the house in a week.

KedzUe v. Wallace. L 26 for damage through assault by the defendant. Mr Stou! for the plaintiff. Mr Harris, for the defence, admitted that the plaintiff was expelled from the laud of the defeuda.it, but that no more violence than necessary was used. The plaintfff said he lived on the farm adjoining that of the defendant. A surveyor v'as surveying on a road line at the White Swamp on the 13th March, for whom he went to get a road man to put in pegs to mark the line. On his return, standing beside the surveyor, was Wallace, who asked him if he was a member of the Road Board. On being answered, no, he ordered him off his property. Plaintiff refused to go, saying he was on a road-line and on public property. On which, after a few more words, defendant sieged him by the neck-tie, twisted his hand in it, and jammed his knuckles n his throat. He continued pulling and knocking him about for about five minutes, calling him a thief, said he had been often on his land stealing his property. A witness, named D. Cameron, was present at the fracas. Defendant did not order the Surveyor or himself off the road line, bat singled out Kedzlic. The remainder of the evidence confirmed the account given by the plaintiff. The road-line was an authorize 1 road on the 13th March.—Mr Stewart, surveyor to the Kaikora Road Board, confirmed the evidence of the plaintiff and Cameron. —Charles Sontag, a member of the Road Board, authorized the plaintiff to go upon the road line on business during the formation of the line. The defendant disputed the right of the Road Board to take the iand, and claimed to have only used sufficient force to remove plaintiff off the land. He thought he had no right to order the members of the Road Board off the line. —Thomas Farley had seen the plaintiff on Waller’s land about three or four mouths’ ago.—J"hn Jenkins gave similar evidence,—His Worship considered that the road line was sufficiently acknowledged to justify the plaintiff being upon it. The assault did not appear to have been a very serious one, and he thought justice would be done by awarding 40s damages, with costs. Judgment accordingly. [Left sitting.]