RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3331, 23 October 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, October 23. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.)

Obtain incs Money under, False Pretences. —Charles B. Cooper was charged wijth having, by false representations, received L2.Q from William Wilson, with intent to defraud fhe same. —Mr Wilson, who defended, the prisoner, eij.id he bad been in communication with the parties, apd hsd learnt that there was not sutlicieat evidence to warrant them proceeding with the ease. Accused was consequently discharged for want of prosecution. civil case. Dewar v. Wallace was a claim for L2OO for the (jdjeged malicious destruction of a fence. Mr Haggitt appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Harris for defendant. —David Dewar, in his evidence, said 2110 chains of his fencing had been destroyed by defendant, who had leased a part of it. Wallace valued twelve chains at 28s, and the remainder at 255. The fencing was sold by auction at Wallace s instance ; but witness protested against the sale. In cross-examination witness said he had erected dykes in accordance w th the covenant. There was no fence -when defendant took possession.—Arthur Crcagh, clerk to Messrs Haggitt, Haggitt, and Brent, proved that that firm wrote to Wallace informing him that proceedings would be taken against him if he damaged the fencing on Dewar’s land.—John Gordon ; I am a farmer. I know the defendant. He had said he was going to have a sale. I asked him if his lease was out. He said no. I asked him how would be and hia landlord do. Defendant remarked be might pull him. Mr Haggitt : What about Bell Hill ? Mr Harris objected, and contended that such a suggestion was not legal.—His Worship overruled the objection.—Witness : All that defendant said was lhat he would do nothing they could put him there for. He

spoke about filing his schedule if they ptiibed him hard. I was at the sale, but did not observe any fencing sold. By Mr Harris . During the time of conversation on this occasion, Mr Wallace complained that they ought to have paid for a double fencing, bo* cause that road line was not in the plan that he had.—David Christie, settler, knew Mr Wallace, and pulled down some fencing by his instructions. There were about ten men working at the fence for two days.— This was the case for the prosecution.— Mr Harris stated bis objections as follows : Firstly, That the Act does not contemplate a proceeding of this kind under section 13 against a tenant; and whoie a covenant is made, ho was bound by that covenant, and the proper remedy was to sue for a breach of covenant. Secondly, That there had been no proof offare i that the Ann Dewar named in the will of the late Dewar was the person named in the information. In the information she was styled Ann Dewar—in the summons, Anue Dewar, awd in the will Ann Macfarlaue or Dewar. He contended that the identity of Ann Dewar, as being the same person as the one named in the will, had not been proved, and that the information was bad for want of precision. Fourthly, That the unlawfulness or maliciousness of the act had not been proved. As to the second objection—it was that there was no proof that the Ann Dewar named in the information was the one in the will. Now, he denied that such was necessary, the only mention of Anne Dewar in the information being that it was her property. Although it said in the will “ Anne Dewar or MacfarlanV he believed that the Scotch law provided that the maiden name should be given, and he had but little doubt Mrs Dewar’s maiden name was Macfarlane.—Mr Harris intirmited that ho would ask for an adjournment for a convenient time to allow a surveyor to inspect the ground and decide whether the fence was not on defendant’s property. -The case was then adjourned till Saturday next. [Left sitting,]