RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2851, 9 April 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Yesterdav. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) and I. N. Watt, Esq., J.P, Civil Cases. Livingstone v. Henry.—L2 (is 91, for stationery supplied. Jlulgmcnt by default for plaintiff. Henderson v. David Corson.—Lß 15s Gd, for clothes supplied. Judgment by default for plaintiff. Ritchie v. Proudfoot.—The complainant, Matilda Ritchie, widow, of Port Chalmers, stated that David Proudfoot and R. Oliver, contractors for the railway, did wilfully take posse sion of section 22, Port Chalmers, under the provisions of the Dunedin and Port Chalmers Compulsory Lauds Taking Ordinance, without the consent of the said Matilda Ritchie, or having come to any arrangement as to compensation. Mr Howorth for complainant; Mr Haggitt for defendants. Defendants pleaded not guilty.—Mr howorth stated the legal points of the case by quoting the various sections in the Dunedin and Port Chalmers Railway Act relating thereto, showing that the defendants were liable to a penalty for entering upon such laud without making proper compensation. Defendants had given notice in June last that they would require the land, but had not taken any st eps to secure the same. Mrs Ritchie had several times communicated with defendants respecting such notice, but had received no reply. Plaintiff stated in her communication that she required LIUO as compensation for using her ground in making the tunnel, or LSOO if they took the "whole section. —Matilda Ritchie, storekeeper, Port Chalmers, in evidence, produced the Crown grant and probate of her husband’s will. She received information in the beginning of March that her section was being tunnelled. On the 19th of the same mouth she commenced to dig in her section. Mr Proudfoot asked her what she meant by t putting a shaft down, and witness replied “that was her business.” Mr Proudfoot replied that she would be sorry for it, and asked her why she had not sent a friend to him to arrange the matter, instead of going to a lawyer, Witness answered that she had written him a letter, stating the amount she ‘wanted, when defendant only laughed and said she might get LlO. The house belonging to witness had also suflercd through the blasting carried on in the tunnel, the chimney having been cracked and the roof made leaky. She estimated the tunnel had damaged the value of her section to the extent of LSO. In crossexamination, witness admitted signing an arbitration deed, brought to her by Mr Grant, but finding Mr Grant had misrepresented it being signed by neighbours, demanded it back and burnt it. She also permitted Mr George Duncan to speak to Mr Proudfoot about her claim, but gave him no authority to negotiate. J. Thompson, contractor, said he examined the house belonging to Mr Ritchie and found it considerably damaged He believed the house had been built some time. His Worship adjourned the decision |of the case till this day week, for the purpose chiefly to give the parties an opportunity of settling the matter by arbitration.