RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3329, 21 October 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, October 20. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., K.M.) Iq tlie following cases judgment was given by default for the amount claimed, together with costs :—l. M, Massey ({ter Corporation) against Thomas llammond, 18s od, for City rates ; same against Joseph P. Burn, L2 3s 9d ; A. Salarnon v. llobort Hogg, idO, unlawful detention of a watch, the property of plaintiff; C. iNicol v. John Clarkson, L 6 2s, for sundry hoots supplied. Henry Miller v, James Torrie : claim LOO 13s 6d, being L6S 13s i d on a bill for goods supplied, and I I for interest on same. Mr Haggitt for plaintiff; Mr ."tout for defendant. Case ad journed for ten days.

North v. Clark. Claim, L2O, for loss and damage sustained on the (itb October through trespass by defendant on plaintiff’s property —section 19, block 1, Hortobcllo District—and for causing a drain to be cut through the property. Mr Stewart for plaintiff, Mr Stout for defendant.—Mr Stewart said the only intimation that they had received chat the drain was to be cut through the land was a note from defendant, e'erk to the Road Board, on the (hh instant, to the effect that a minute authorising defendant to have the drain dug had been passed. The drain was cut the next .day (the 7th). Be (the learned counsel) submitted Ist, That three days’ notice must be given of intention ; 2nd, That the land was not adjoining the road, which was necessary before the Hoad Board could cut the ground to make a drain to improve the property; and Mrd, That it was not necessary for the purpose of draining the road to cut the laud. If his Worship was satislied that plaintiff was in possession of the land, and that defendant had given instructions to have the drain cut, the only thing Was to assess the damages —J. North, the plaintiff, stated he had been in possession of section 19, block 1, Portobollo, for twelve years. He believed a ditch was dug stealthily by Mr Wisbait about two mouths ago. A Mr Allen dug about a chain and a-balf of the ground on the 7th. Defendant said he employed .Alien. No person had authority from witness to dig on his ground. Owing to the manner in which the drain was cut, the water from the lagoon overflowed and swamped witness’s

property. He estimated the damage done at L 5 ; but it would take L2O to put that piece, and the adjoining piece of cultivated land in the condition it was before the drain was cut —ln cross-examination witness admitted that he had been told previous to the 2nd inst., it was the Board’s desire to construct the drain through his land. Mr Stewart wished to put in as evidence the letter sent by Mr Clark to plain'iff in which it was stated that the Board intended to cut the drain, but Mr Stout objected, as defendant was sued as Mr Clark, farmer, and not as connected with the Hoad Board.—Mis Worship agreed with Mr Stout, and the admission of the letter was not allowed. —He had been in undisturbed possession of this land for the last two years, but no drain had been cut to his knowledge. [His Worship Here remarked that be had taken down witness’s evidence as nearly as possible, but owing to the number of times in which he had contradicted himself, be (the Magistrate) could not understand it]— John Shepherd said he knew the section where the new drain had been made quite well. When he saw the place on the Ifbh there was a little water on it; but he had not seen it since the drain was formed. When he spoke to Mr Clark about three weeks ago, he told him that he thought it a very hard case to run the water from off Shepherd’s on to North’s ground.—By Mr Stout: He was brother-in-law to plaintiff. —Various other witnesses having been examined in support of the plaintiff's case. Mr Stout submitted that no trespass bad been committed, as by the 78th section of the Ordinance the Board was empowered to make, maintain, and repair laud near tinroad. The Board was not, therefore, liable unless it trespassed It was pioved by the evidence of the defendant and others that North ha 1 received notice to remove obstructions to the drain, and, on October 4, of the Board’sintcution tomakethedrain.-Hia Worship said that, after weighing the evidence, lie came to ihe conchndon that the drain had been constructed sometime ago by the orders of the Road Board, and that it had been in existence more or less ever since. He did not think it necessary for the Board to give notic, 1 , as they were entitled to enter the land. It app> ared there was no trespass, •and it was very doubtful whether the water was properly taken through the land, plaintiff and Aden only giving evidence on that punt. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff should have made the claim against the Hoad Board in the first instance. Tuesday, October 21. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., E.M. Drunkenness.— John Douglas was fined ss, or twenty-four hours ; Elizabeth Holloway, who stated that she had been drunk for four years, was remanded till to morrow. Breaches of the Licensed Carriage Ordinance. —The following were charged with plying for hire for the conveyance of passengers without a license, contrary to the ordinance of ISG2 : George Christie, fined IDs and costs ; Henry Yeend, IDs and costs ; James Duncan, 10s and costs. For carrying goods in unlicensed waggons, George Monk wai fined 5s and costs ; William Bourne, 5a and costs ; and Alexander Fyfe, 5s and costs. Frederick Lamb was charged with driving a Caveroham ’bus without a license, but as he stated that he was a new arrival, and that Mr Cotton, who employed him to drive the ’bus, told him it was licensed, his Worship d .(-missed the case, recommending the Inspec or to sue Mr Cotton. Bleaches of the Bye-laws. —Jonathan Hodgson, for throwing two barrow-loads of rotten oranges on the beach in Crawford street, was fined 20s and costs. Patrick O’Farrell, for keeping an unregistered goat, was lined 5s and costs ; and for allowing the goat to be as large, Is and costs. Assault. —Faulkner v. Leckie.—Mr Stout for defendant. Plaintiff stated that on the 18ill inst. he was riding on the North road between the seven and eight-mile posts, when he met defendant, who made signs to him to puli up. Witness did so, and defendant asked if he hail received an account for 8s 6d from ids brother. He said he had, and that he did not see his way clear to pay it. Defendant kept asking if he would pay it, and worked himself into a passion, eventually challenging witness to tight. The latter rode away, but defendant rode after and overtook him, trying to close with him, and when near the quarry did get hold of the reins. There were three men there, and witness pulled up his horse and drew the men’s attention to defendant’s conduct, but they taking no notice he proceeded again along the road. On-reaching Mr Canning’s, witness went in there, leaving defendant talking to Mr Canning. Cross-examined : Defendant did strike me once. I did not use any bad language to defen Rant till he did so to me, and then I might have called him a blackguard. —Joseph Sclater, saddler, stated that he was at the quarry on the day in question, and that plaintiff called bis attention to defendant’s conduct. ibe latter kept asking for some money, and plaintiff called him a blackguard and scoundrel, —John Kemp, quarry man, gave similar evidence.—lsaac Canning, settler, stated that he saw the parties in this action galloping along the road, and plaintiff complained to him that defendant was stopping him on the public road. Witness let plaintiff into bis land, and defendant, saying that he would have it out of him if it cost him L 5, went along the road. —His Worship thought plaintiff’s case did cot rest on uncorroborated evidence. It was evident that defendant had pursued plaintiff and tried to check or up et him, and it was well known what the expression “ having it out of’’plaintiff meant; therefore, his Worship’s opinion was that defendant had better pay the L 5 he said it should cost him, as to obtain the sum, 8s 6d, said to be due by plaintiff, lie should have taken different steps.— Defendant was ordered to pay L 5, or one month’s imprisonment, with hard labor.—Mr Stout gave notice of appeal.