RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2854, 12 April 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. Baxter and another v. Fiuldey.—Adjourned to Monday, 15th inst. Sidey v, Townsend.—LS 4s 9d, for damages for cattle trespass on plaintiff’s land. Mr James Smith for plaintiff; Mr Stout for defendant.— T amos Cochran detailed the number of days the defendant’s cattle trespassed on plaintiff’s land.—Cross-examined by Mr Stout: The reason I know that the cattle belong to defendant is, that they were in defendant’s paddock when not trespassing in plaintiff’s paddock ; and defendant's cow boy took charge o£ the cattle on one occasion, and put them into defendant’s prddock. The plaintiff explained the manner in which he estimated the damage. Cattle were estimated at threepence a night. His land was unfenced; but fencing was of no use, for the neighbors made an opening in the fences to let in their cattle.—Mr Stout submitted that the identity of the cattle was not sufficiently proved, and asked a non-suit.—Mr Smith replied.—His Worship considered the evidence sufficient to call upon the defendant to answer,—F. Townsend, the defendant, said in 1871 the highest number of cattle he had in the paddock a 'joining Sidey’s laud was nineteen, and that cows not belonging to him trespassed on his land. He had seen many on Sidey’s land.—His Worship considered the evidence showed that warning having been given to defendant to keep his cattle off the laud, there was no excuse for their trespass. Judgment for the plaintiff, L 5 and costs.

Sidey v. Barr.—There was also a crossaction of Barr v, Sidey, and his Worship suggested an arrangement, to which the plaintiff objected. The claim was for cattle trespass and half cost of fencing, Ll4 9-. Mr James Smith for the plaintiff; Mr Stout for the defendant. For the defence the cattle trespass was denied, and the fence was stated not to have been put up according to agreement.—His Worship considered from the evidence that the cattle trespass was not disproved, and he assessed the damages at L2. The defence against pajung for the fence could not be held for a moment. He assessed that at the actual cost, LlO Is 6d. Judgment for the plaintiff, Ll2 Is Gd and costs.

Barr v. Sidey.—L2s. Mr Stout for the plaintiff; Mr James Smith for the defendant. The claim was L2O, for damage through trespass aud removing the fences, and L 5 for two trespasses. From the evidence of the plaintiff it appeared that a fence put up on land claimed by him was pulled down carted away by the defendant. For the defence it was contended that the fence was erected on a line pointed out by the defendant, which turned out incorrect ; and, by agreement, defendant put up a better fence on the proper Hue. The trespass was not denied, but the learned counsel for the defendant considered 5s would be ample compensator Evidence in support of these statements was given. In giving judgment, his Worship considered that Barr had misled Sidey in the position of the fence, and if any blame was attributable to any one it was equally divided. Judgment for plaintiff, 20s ai.d cost-*. Lothian v.JLtoss. —Lls fo>* damages done by defendant’s horses on plaintiff’s laud a; Anderson’s Bay. -Air Stewart for plaintiff and Mr Stout for defendant.—Air Stewart, in stating the case, said that defendant was a coach proprietor, who drove between Dunedin and Anderson’s Bay. He had seven or eight horses, and turned his cattle out c ose to plaintiffs pioperty, consisting of ten acres of grass, which had been very much eaten by defendant’s horses. Plaintiff had spoken to defendant frequently, and Had taken out the cattle several times himself. He considered he would suffer much during the winter through the loss of his crop.—Mr Lothian, in evidence, said he had

frequently seen defendant’s horses on his ground. Mr Ross had informed him that his fence wasdswn, and, in examination, admitted Ross offered to help him up with it, but he refused his offers of service. Mr Gotten also offered to send a man to put up the fence. In reply to a question, he considered if a horse had been in his paddock one hour, the damage would amount to 2s Gd ; if for a night, LI. Mr-sLothian, wife of the previous witness, saw Mr Rrss’a horses in the paddock in the morning, and they might have been there all night. The horse seemed well filled. In reply to Mr Stout, witness admitted the horse might have been well filled in Mr Gutteu’s paddock.—Hugh Boss, the defendant, said he had permission to run his horses in Mr Cutteu’s paddock at Vauxhall, and was anxious to k< ep his horses out of Lothian’s paddock. He had informed Mr Lothian that his fence was down, and had offered his assistance to put it up. He paid I2s per week for his horses grazing in Mr Cutten’s paddock.—Eis Worship said plaintiff was entitled to some compensation, but his claim was excessive. He gave judgment for L2 10s and costs.