RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3350, 14 November 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, November 14. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness. — Francis South was fined 40a, or seven days. Theft.— Charles William Edward Clark, a man of color, was charged with stealing a pair of boots, the property of a Mr Peasy, from the Waverly boarding-honse —Elizabeth Keenan, proprietress of the house, stated that on the sth inst. accused went there to take a box away, and afterwards the boots were missing. Sergt. Deane stated that, from information received, he arrested accused and found the boots in his possession, -Accused said that he had bought the bo -ts of a man he did not know, and called M r Keenan, husband of Elizabeth Keenan, as a witness to his character. —Thomas Keenan -aid accused had been in the house about ten days off and on, and had always behaved honestly.—Mr Peasy, the prosecutor, asked the Bench to deal leniently with accused, as he had not been long in Dunedin. —His Worship said that, when stolen property was found immediately after the theft upon a man who could give no clear account as to whence he obtained it, the law presumed that he had stolen it. Such was this case; but as the prosecutor had spoken on his behalf, accused would be sentenced to only seven days’ imprisonment, with hard labor. CIVIL CASES. Halfway Bush Road Board r. Dunedin Waterworks Co.—Claim LIOO, for road rates. His Worship gave judgment in this case as follows : I Rave looked into all the cases cited by the learned counsel on behalf of the defence, and can find nothing cogent enough to make me alter the opinion which I gave in a judgment m a somewhat similar case at Port Chalmers. In fact, upon reading sec. 0, “Highway Boards Empowering Act, 1871 ” (which provides for the quashing of the rate as _ a whole, and its subsequent collection notwithstanding, if deemed advisable, the amounts to be credited as payments on account of the next effective rates), I am the more strongly of opinion that, in enacting section 12 of the same Act, it was the intention of the legislature _to prevent any one or move ratepayers avoiding the payment of any road rate purporting to be legally made, whether the same be only voidable or absolutely void, unless it shall be “wholly (plashed,” as provided in section 9 of the Act. Judgment for plaintiffs, LIOO, with costs. _ Mr Holmes, for defendants, gave notice of appeal. Kaikorai Road Board v. Barr.—Claim Lll, for wrongful removal and conversion to his own use by defendant of certain road metal, the property of plaintiffs. His Worship gave judgment as follows It appears that one Cross had contracted with the plaintiff's to furnish them with a certain quantity of road metal, by the roadside, broken so as to be lit for spreading upon the road. Cross agreed with defendant to quarry some of the stone from lus land, and to pay him sixpence a yard for all the broken metal be should procure from such stone. Cross quarried, “spalled,” and hauled to the roadside about 100 yards of stone from the defendant’s land, and about 50 yards from that of a person of the name of Fraser. The plaintiffs then made to Cross a progress payment of L2O. For neglect or non-performance, the plaintiffs subsequently took the contract out of the hands of ( Toss, and resolved to perform the work themselves, Defendant then applied to plaintiffs to pay him for the stone hauled from his land, and on this being refused, he removed from the roadside on to his land a» much stone as he considered an equivalent for the money due to him by Cross, namely, about 24 yards of spalled stones, worth at the roadside say 4s 3d per yard, thus depriving the plaintiffs of property of the value to them of L 5 Is, and leaving to the plaintiffs 7b yards, for which I think he was equitably entitled to the price he was to have got from Cross, namely, LI 18s. The plaintiffs are therefore entitled to judgment for the balance (L 3 (is); but as I consider they acted in an exceedingly ungenerous and paltry manner in refusing to pay the defendant’s claim ill the first instance, I shall give no costs ; more especially also as it appears they would have made a profit of L 4 7s 6d upon the breaking of Cross’s contract, had they paid both defendant and Fraser in full for the metal procured by Cross from them. Stamper v. Bellamy and Lane.—Application for a rehearing. His Worship gave his decision on this application as follows :

lii this case I feel that I am upon delicate ground : that any remarks which I might make miglit be misapprehended as those in my former judgment have been ; I shall content myself therefore by saying that I have consulted the cases referred to by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, and several others bearing upon the subject, amongst them Hill v. I eatherstonhaugh, 7 Bingham, 569, which appears to me to be very applicable; and that, upon reepn-

federation, I have failed to find any sufficient reason for granting a rehearing. Rehearing refused.

Bright Bros, and Co. v. Charles John Hib-bard.—-Claim L 42 14s, for ale supplied.— Defendant had forwarded a letter to the Clerk of the Court stating that, being locked np by his landlord, he was unable to attend the Court, and that all his effects being taken under distraint, he was unable to pay the claim. Judgment for plaintiffs for amount claimed, with costs.

Judgment was given by default in the following case Guthrie and Asher v George Dempster : claim, LSS 15s, for dishonored acceptance and interest thereon. Purvis v. ADGregor.—< laim L 77 15s, for loss and damage sustained through defendant’s sheep trespassing on plaintiff s land, thereby damaging and destroying the grass on such laud. Mr Stewart appeared for plaintiff, iMr Harris for defendant.—James Purvis stated that he owned a paddock of about seventy-two acres at Saddle Hill, which had been laid down in grass. Part of it was stubble and part natural grass. On several occasions witness had driven out numbers of defendant’s sheep from the paddock, all of which he had counted and entered in a book at the different times. (Witness read the entries of the trespasses, the number of sheep varying from fifteen at a time to over two hundred.) He thought 4.pi per head a fair amount to claim for the damage, as cattle would not graze where sheep had been.— Cross-examined : Defendant did not repair his fence till after he received a summons. Witness was not bound to keep the boundary fence in repair, but defendant was, or else to keep his sheep off witness’s land. There was something said about four years ago as to which part of the fence each should keep in repair. Witness and defendant “tossed up” for choice. Witness had received a notice to repair the fence, and had done so, and it is now a good cattle fence. Had several times impounded defendant’s sheep, but did not on the last occasion. Had a lease of the land, at L4O a-year, which runs out in about twelve months, but with the option of renewal,—Christina Purvis, wife of plaintiff, took notes of the dates of trespass of defendant’s sheep, and of the number of the sheep, varying from one to three hundred at a time, in consequence their cattle had suffered, some of them dying.—David and Arthur Purvis, sons of plaintiff, gave evidence of the trespassing,—Hughan Cameron, Donald M‘Master, Robert Cramond, and Deorge Prain gave evidence mainly to the effect that fourpence per head on the trespassing sheep was a reasonable charge for such damage as plaintiff had sustained. (Left sitting.)