RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3002, 2 October 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tma Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Casks. Mnlrooney v. Soudain.—Ls 14s Bd, for groceries supplied. Judgment for plaintiff, consent, to be paid by instalments o£ L2 per month.

Gollarv, J. Brookes.— lls 4d, for bread supplied. Judgment for plaintiff by default, with costs. Collar v. Bellemain.—L6 7s sd, for bread supplied. Plaintiff admitted the debt, but said there was a sura of 10s paid and not Recounted for. Judgment for plaintiff by consent for L % 17s’ sd. : Turner v. Aughferson—L4 13s for board and lodging, and LI for share of bookmakers’ tools. Mr Sanders for plaintiff; Mr Stout for defendant. The plaintiff stated that he receive J L 3 as a present for introducing a sweetheart, who married defendant. Defendant pleaded a set-off. The whole affair was a disputed account, with no memoranda. Judgment for the plaintiff. 12 14s 6d, each party to pay half costs}. Brown v. Macaulay.---140 Mr Stout for the plaintiff; Mr Harris for the defendant. This was a claim for damage for trespass by cattle. The plaintiff is a farmer on the Peninsula, near Wickliffe Bay, where lie cultivates 4f> acres, This land is separated from a Native reserve of some ISQQ acres by some unfeuced land. On this laud numbers of cattle and horses graze, nearly wild, and breaking down plaintiffs fences, destroy his crops. On the 19th September he found three htdfarp feeding on his pasture, with plaintiff’s own oatUe He dU ipipoupd tin in, but they wore acknowledged to belong [to defendant. He asked 10.? as compensation for their feed, but turned them out of paddock sown with oats on to the common land. He considered the cattle had done damage to the extent of 10s. Pop the defence, it was stated that plaintiff’s wife drove the calves purposely along the road towards the slip panel, and then took down t-hc panel to decoy the calves into the paddock. " In evidence, wife denied the statement, .lohn Geary said, cn the morning of the 19th he saw one calf in the oats and two on the road. He did not think tjae calves could have got into the paddock had th,e panels beep up. He was about 30 chains fropi the slip'panels, ancf epuid noi say whether the calves entered by them or not, John Mapapdrew gave evidence that he saw Mrs Brown act as d 1 scribed, This was confirmed by John Macandrew, juu., but neither could say that the panels were not replaced by her. There was a cross action for unlawful detention of the cattle. Judgment for the plaintiff in the first case, IQs. In the cross action, Ida Worship considered that the cattle should have been taken to the public pound at the end or three days, and gave judgment for 5s ; each party to pay costs.