RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2842, 28 March 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Inis Day. (Before A. 0. Strode, Esq.,?R.M.) Civil Cases. Proudfoot and another v. Banbury and Treasurer.—Mr Haggitt for the plaintiffs ; Mr Bathgate for the defendants. Mr Bathgate called Mr Fimiimore, who said he had made a mistake in his evidence, and that he had seen the record map of the Province, and found the district road to Port Chalmers laid down on it. In giving judgment, his Worship said that he was of opinion that a great deal of matter had been imported into the case that did not belong to it. The question was not whether the promoters had exceeded their powers in the course of constructing the railway works of the Pore Chalmers Railway, but simply and solely whether wrongful damage had been done by the defendants to the property of the plaintiffs—and, if so, to what amount? If the plaintiffs in the course of their works had contravened the law, they rendered themselves liable to prosecution and punishment ; but because they had done so, if they had done so, under some of the provisions of the Compulsory Land Taking Ordinance, that was no possible reason why the defendants should destroy their property. In a great public work like the Port Cha'mcrRailway, contractors had to contend with and overcome very considerable difficulties, without having persons undoing work already done, and committing absolutely deliberate mischief such as in the present case appeared from the evidence before the Court to have been inflicted, whereby the plaintiffs had suffered wrong. He observed also a determination to persist ia this course of mischief, inasmuch as it appeared to him that the defendants had been remonstrated with and asked to desist, and notwithstanding this they persisted in pei forming their work in such a way as to cause not only damage but expense to the plaintiffs. He had to consider the question of the amount of damage, and his estimate was that it was LIS. Judgment for the plaintiffs, LIS, together with costs. Mr Bathgate gave notice of appeal, and tendered the name of Mr Francis Smith as surety for the amount awarded to the plaintiffs. He claimed the right to appeal without asking leave of the Court, as the amount claimed was over L2O. M r Haggitt objected to Mr Smith, as he had been the instigator of the whole proceedings. His Worship thought the best way would be for Mr Smith to make a statutory declaration as to his means. Mr Haggitt applied for professional costs, and pointed out that the case had occupied five full days. Two guineas were allowed. Matilda Ritchie v. Proudfoot and Oliver. —Mr Howorth for the plaintiff, Mr Haggitt for the defendants, said in consequence of the lime being so short since the summons was served, he had not had time to secure the attendance of witnesses. The case was adjourned to Monday week. Cairns v. Casey.—Mr Bathgate for the complainant, Mr Stout for defendant. Mr Bathgate applied for an adjournment as a principal witness was out of town. Mr Stout would not object to the adjournment if costs of the defendant for the delay were loft subject to the ultimate decision of the Court. The case was adjourned to Monday week. The Court adjourned to Saturday.