RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4016, 10 January 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Monday, January 10. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq , RM.) Lucknow Quartz Mining Company v. Coldough.—Claim, LSO, on calls. No appearance of defendant. Mr Deuniston appeared for plaintiff, for whom judgment was given, with costs. Charles Moore, saddler, v. Geo. I'aymond, of Naseby.—Claim of L 26 3s lid, for goods supplied. Judgment was given for plaintiff, with costs. Henry Youngman v. Win. G. Burnam.—This was an action for ejectment from certain premises on section 3, block 2, Dunedin. Mr Stout appeared for plaintiff. His Worship ordered that defendant should immediately leave. Judgment ,was also given for 16s for rent due. North East Valley Road Board v. James Crawford, railway inspector.—Claim for rates due. The point in dispute was whether defendant, being a Government servant, was responsible for rates. Nr Stout contended that he was. Mr Haggitt, who defended, submitted that he was not, end iu support thereof argued that the ground was for public purposes; or, secondly, that it was occupied by the| Crown. If occupied by the Crown it was occupied by the Crown within the meaning of the Act. The land being occupied by an inspector of works on the railway by virtue of the office which he held is land in occupation of the Crown, and as such is exempt from taxation. Again, the inspectorlof works is a public officer, and the person who occupies a- house iu order to be nearer to his work aud to exercise a supervision of the works under his charge, occupies it for a public purpose in connection with his office.—His Worship gave a verdict for defendant. Jn all probability defendant would have had an increase in his salary if he had not held land on Crown property.