RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3352, 17 November 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Monday, November 17. (Before I. N, Watt, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness. —John Gleeson was fined 10s, or forty-eight hours’ ; William Harloek was but for assaulting Constable Doran was lined 40s, or fourteen days’, SubInspector Mallard stating that prisoner’s conduct was so violent and outrageous that himself and four constables could scarcely overpower him. U>round Mind. — Andrew Rogers was charged with being of unsound mind and dable to become dangerous to himself or others.—Sergeant Deane stated yesterday evening he mot accused with Mr Black, J P. The latter astied witness to go with thun to the Inspector, and on going there and questioning accused, he answered that he wanted to see the Rev. Dr Stuart, who had recommended him to read light books, not heavy ones. Witness then advised accused to get married, the latter replying that the doctors had said the same. In witness’s opinion accused might become dangerous, His Worship remanded him for medical examination. CIVIL CASES. EutwisHe v. Rorter. Claim L 3 10s, balance of wages duo. Mr Stout appeared for defendant*—Plaintiff, who is a painter, stated that he had worked seven days and a half tor defendant at 12s per day, but had only received LI on account. Cross-ex-amined : Believed he had agreed to do work for defendant to work out an acciunt he owed, but that was for grog.—Defendant, hotel-keeper at Caversbam, said that he merely gave plaintiff the job to work off his account. Judgment for defendant, with costs. Hutchison v. King. Claim L2 1 Is, balance of account for boots supplied. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, with costs, Widdersou v, Hopcroft.—Claim L 7 19s 3d, balance of account for wages, Mr Scout appeared for plaintiff, Mr Stewart for defendant.—There was a cross action in which Hopcroft claimed L 9 6s 3d for sundry material —Plaintiff, in the first case, stated that defendant engaged him to do certain work, when nothing was said about wages. The current rate was 12s per day. As to the cross-action for material, witness never authorised Hopcroft to get any, but it was an affair between Hopcroft and the proprietor of the house where the work was being done. Cross-examined : Witness drew up the specifications for the work, but did not know that Hopcroft had extra work through their not being drawn up properly. Did not tell Hopcroft that he would pay him for the extras. —James Mowatt, carpenter, looked over the work for Mr M ‘Donald, the proprietor of the house, , and considered Widderson’s work the best in the building. Cross-examined : Was a carpenter by trade as well as a wheelwright. Worked at either, according to the money to be made.—Frederic Hopcroft, contractor, said that plaintiff asked him for work, saying that he had earned only 36s during three weeks. No rate of waves was agreed upon, but incompetent workmen got as little as 7s a day ; at Duuning’& buildings men were working at that rate. Was willing to give plaintiff 10s per day. Had to do extras beyond the specifications and supply the material, for which witness told plaintiff he would iiave to pay him, if M‘Donald did not. Cross-examined : Know plaintiff v\as an incompetent workman for the last three or four years, but still gave him a job without fixing a rate of wages. (Witness here rambled greatly in his remarks,, fenced a good deal in an impertinent manner with the questions of the counsel, until the Bench, threatened to order him into custody.)— His Worship thought, as regarded the material in dispute, it was a case of oath against oath. In the first case no arrangement as to wages had been made, so he would divide the 10s and 12s rate, and give judgment for Widderson for L 7 6s, withfeosts ; in the second case, judgment for Hopcroft for 14s (10s for a sheet of glass and 4s paid into Court) without costs,

Purvis v. M‘Gregor.—The following evidence for the defence in this case (part of which was reported in our issue of Friday last) was given on Friday N. J. B. VI ‘Gregor, plaintiffs father, was present at a conversation held some time ago between plaintiff and some others, relative to the boundary fence between plaintiff’s and defendant’s land. There was a toss up for choice, which fell to plaintiff, who elected to keep the lower part of the fence in repair.—Alexander M‘Gregor, the defendant, said iie owned a piece of land adjoining that of plaintiff. Witness fulfilled his part of the engagement to keep the fence in repair, but plaintiff had neglected his portion. Letters hul been sent to plamtiff warning him of his neglig nee. Cross-examined : Had been summoned before by plaintiff for trespass, and ou that occasion paid L 5 into Court, His reason for doing so was because the sheep had destroyed plaintiff's crops. On the present occasion his laud was laid down in natural grass and. f«rns.—James Aitken, farmer, who has lived at the Taieri for twenty-two years, and William Mitchell gave corroborative evidence. Judgment was reserved till this morning, whenFs Worship delivered it as follows : This is a claim for L 77 15s, for twenty-seven separate trespasses of flocks of defendant s sheep upon plaintiff’s land between the 7th Juno and the 11th October, the sheep _ trespassing varying in number at time, _ but amounting in the aggregate to 4,705 individual trespasses of the same or various sheep, for which number of trespasses the plaintiff claims by the evidence, though there is an error in the calculation, at the rate of 4d each. The plaintiff pays L4O per annum rent for his land, and this from the evidence appears to be the pj esent value. The trespasses extend over four months and six days, and lie claims very closely upon two years’ rent for the four months’ trespass upon the same. No doubt, if a man’s sheep trespass upon another’s close he is responsible for the trespass, unless the plaintiff is bound by contract or otherwise to maintain the fence, and by neglecting so to do, has contributed to his own injury. And in this case an oral contract to fence, stated to have been made four years ago, has been set up for the defence, but neither party appears to have adhered to the contract, and at no time was the fence such as was prescribed by the Fencing Ordinance. I think, then, I may fairly throw aside the consideration of this oral contract. This not being the first time that the plaintiff has sued the defendant for the trespass of his .sheep, he claims exemplary damages, and I think he is fairly entitled to them ; but the amount should be assessed with some regard to the presumed damages sustained (though no special damages are claimed or proved), and to the fact of the plaintiff “ lying by” for so long a period as he has, as well as to his inconvenience and loss of comfort. Either party might have availed himself of the provisions of the Fencing Ordinance, and then the plaintiff would have had more summary redress under the Impounding Ordinance ; but both parties seem to have been inclined rather to trust to the chapter of accidents, than to make the necessary outlay for fencing according to law. I think then I shall be giving the defendant exemplary damages, and I mean them to be exemplary, regard being had to his own conduct in the matter, if I give him as the measure of the same four months’ rent. Judgment for the plaintiff Ll3 6s Bd, with costs. Sonutag v. White.—Claim L 6 6s, for fruit trees supplied. Judgment for plaintiff by default for amount claimed, with costs. Wilson and Another v. Kerr.—Claim L 34 Is 7d, stated to be due from defendant to the assigned estate of P. M. Grant and Co His Worship delivered judgment as follows : The articles amounting in value to L 7 7s Bd, not entered in the pass book, cannot be allowed to the plaintiff, nor the 11s Bd, admitted to be charged in error. The defendant must be allowed for the two five pounds paid on 6th October and 3rd December; aud with respect to the LI 5 said by defendant to be paid by him in Maclaggan street, and denied by Grant, I see nothing in the evidence to throw the balance to either side, and therefore divide the amount ecpially between the parties, as I think both the defendant and Grant have been equally careless. This leaves a balance of L 8 13s 3d due to the plaintiffs. Judgment for the plaintiffs L 8 13s 3d, with costs.