RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2853, 11 April 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

[Yesterday. (Before A. G. Strode, Esq., K.M.) Civil Cases. Connell v. Campbell.—Llo. Mr Harris for tbe plaintiff, Mr Stout for the defendant. Judgment for the defendant. This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., 11.M.) Civil Cases. City Corporation v. Thomas Smith.—Ll 1 11s, being amount due for kerbing done in front of defendant’s premises, in Walker street. Mr Smith for plaintiff; Mr Howorth for defendant. —Mr Smith stated the c.se, that an order had been duly served upon defendant, calling upon him to pay the above amount, on account of 00 feet of kerbing, calculated at the rate of 3s Gd per linear foot, and proved that, under sections 12 and 34 of the Corporation Act, the City Council were empowered to call upon owners or occupiers to pay a sum not exceeding 4s 6.1 per foot.—Robert Bain, Town Belt Ranger, proved in evidence the delivery of the notice upon the defendant personally on the 7th of November last, and at that time defendant was in the occupation of the premises. He produced a copy of the notice.—Mr Howorth asked if it was a real copy. —Mr Bain: It is a fac-simile, the notices in the block being the same.—Mr Howorth did not think it was a copy, and he submitted the notice was not sufficiently proved.—Mr Smith said the real notice was in Mr Howorth’s possession, and he had failed to produce it when called upon, and the Court never favored a person having a document in possession and not producing it.—His Worship it was quite sufficient evidence in tbe witness giving the real tenor of the notice. —Mr Smith asked if defendant’s counsel admitted ownership. Mr Howorth; No. —Mr Smith: Then I must put Mr Howorth in tbe witness box. —Mr Howorth claimed privilege to he sworn out of the box, and also not to reply as to who was the owner, he being his client’s solicitor. He would say Mr Smith was not the owner. Thomas Smith, in evidence, owned that the kerbing had been executed. He considered his ownership consisted of a lease with a right of purchase. Mr Henry Howorth was his legal landlord, although the property originally belonged to Mr Crammond. He regarded himself as the owner. The purchase money was L 220, and he paid 10 per cent, interest on that sum per annum as rent until he paid the principal.—J. M. Massey, Town Clerk, read the minute empowering the notices to be issued; and in reply to questions said the contract price of kerbing was 2s 5,j.d, cost of laying was 6d per foot, and the difference between that and 3s Od was for supervising the work.—Mr Howorth said the contract price being 2s s[d, he did not think the amount charged was just, and it was wrong in the Corporation coming to that Court and trying to get it to sanction such iniquities.—His Worship said that Court would not sanction iniquity done by any Corporation in the world. The Act gave the Corporation power to charge the citizens for kerbing to any amount up to 4s 6d. Jf the Corporation did not exercise its power properly, it was for the citizens to complain. The question of ownership had been admitted by Thomas Smith, and he was paying interest upon the purchase-money. He must make an order for the amount, witli costs. - • Mr Smith asked for professional costs.—Mr Howorth submitted by the Act he could not be called upon to pay costs. —His Worship, on looking at the Act, said Mr Howorth was right. The amount would, therefore, he LI I 11s. A. Cairns v. Timothy Casey.— This was a complaint against defendant for obstructing a public road in the Waikari district. Mr Haggitt and Mr Chapter for the complainant and Mr Stout for the defendant.—Mr Haggit in stating the case, said the grants issued by the Gove nment were made subject to a reservation to make a road through them. An authorised survey, made soon after the grant delineated the road, which was constructed six years ago. —Charles Pinner, clerk, produced maps from the second office as belonging to the Load Board. Edward Usher, licensed land surveyor, said he was in the Government employ in 1800, and he did not remember receiving any written instructions respecting the road. If he received any, ihey must have been verbal. He had laid roads in Waikari. [Left sitting.]