RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2974, 30 August 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Day. (Before James Fulton, Esq., R.M.) Civil Casks. EXTENDED JURISDICTION. McGregor v. R. Gibson.—L24los for rent. Claim admitted, Ll9 16s was paid into Court, and defendant pleaded a set off for the balance. Judgment for plaintiff. L2l tin sd. Thomson v. Mylne.—Mr Stout for plaintiff. L3O. Judgment by default for plaintiff for amount claimed together with costs. Wallace v. Dewar and others (Executors in 1). Dewar’s estate). —LIOO. Mr Harris for the plaintiff, MrHaggittfor the defendant. Mr Haggitt objected that Peter Dewar was not an executor, and David Dewar never made the promise alleged, and that he had fully administered all the estate entrusted to him. The plea therefore was “never indebted,” and further that ths Court has no jurisdiction. This was a claim for damages, consequent upon an alleged breach of convenant on the part of the executors through not fencing a road line formed by the Provincial Government through land leased to tho plaintiff for ten years, whereby crops were injured by admitting cattle upon the farm. E. If. Ward, Registrar of tho Supreme Court, read the inventory of the estate of the late D, Dewar, and shewed that the personal and real property was valued at L 2,306 and the liabilities to L 2,190. The plaihtift' said that he had sustained damage through the formation of the new road line to the extent of LIOO. After anumber of wituessusbad been examined for the purpose of proving the damage. Mr Haggitt asked for a nonsuit, on the grounds that the lessee occupied the area of ground agreed upon ; that the executors were not liable, as the damage claimed for was not committed in the lifetime of the devisor; that tho estate had been administered to, and there were no assets in their hands to satisfy a judgment; and that the devisee, P. Dewar, should have been the party sued, if any one.—Bis Worship said tho document was of such an extraordinary character that it was difficult to ascertain from it what was meant, and if in consequence less accrued to tho plaintiff, he must blame himself for neglecting to avail himself of professional advice, Hs was of opinion that the plaintiff

must be nonsuited, for the damage accrued since the death of the testator, and that therefore the executor could not be sued, nor had the plaintiff erected seventy-two chains of fencing in the lifetime of the testator, nor hid there been damage done to the leased land through trespass iu the lifetime of the testator. On the ground that the executors could not be sued the plaintiff must be nonsuited.—Mr Harris gave notice that he should ask leave to appeal. [Left sitting.]