RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'SD COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4162, 29 June 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'SD COURT.

jj Tuesday, June 29. (liofotc J. Bathgate, Esq., R..M.)

Simson v. Larnach.—ln this suit, brought to recover L 7 8a 3d, half the cost of putting a boundary fenoo into a proper stite of repair, his Worship now delivered judgment. A point of considerable importance was in* vofved. The fence was not in tho ordinary position of being a boundary of two adjoin, mg sections of lw*d. occupied for the pur-

poses ef agriculture, bat while the land on °? e . !*~ e ? f tte fence » occupied by the plaintiff for agriculture, the land on tiie other is a road appropriated for publio ÜBo according to a plan deposited in terms of the Land Transfer Act, 1870, section 107. His Worship held that it would not be consistent with equity to hold tne defendant liable for the coat of repairing" a fence running along a public road merely because he is the tenant in the fee simple of the land occupied by the road, and has a reversionary right, a& it wore, to the soil in the event of the road being afterwards altered or shut up, and he (his Worship) considered that it was not the intention of the legislature to impose such a burden on the owner of the soil of a public road. Judgment would be for the defendant, but as the point waß new and important, and likely to affect land adjacent to the numerous townships springing' into existence, he was prepared to allow an appeal if asked. But before the opinion before expressed on the point of law, judg- ! nient would have been for plaintiff for L 6 ss, < as the value of one half of the repairs.—Mr Denniston gave notice of appeal. Elizabeth Darley v. Thomas Calcutt.— In thiß action, heard last week, a claim for L2O for overflow of water, judgment v.as given for the amount claimed, with costß. I *•0. E. Dunning v John Mouat.—Claim L2O for assault. Mr Howorth appeared for plaintiff.—Defendant did not appear,;and Mr Denniston mentioned that he was pro-, fessionally engaged in the Supreme Court.— Mr Howorth said that after an adjournment had been made in another case in which Mouat had been summoned by Dunning for 'ruit supplied, defendant entered plaintiffs shop and behaved himself in an offensive manner, and assaulted plaintiff, breaking his, stick over him. Of course he (the learned counsel) did not like to see a gentleman like defendant so far forget himself as to behave in this manner, but the assault was a most unprovoked one.—Plaintiff deposed that defendant came into his shop on Saturday and called him a mean scoundrel for summoning him. Witness replied he only wished to be just, and to receive payment for the vegetables supplied to defendant's wife. Defendant'then told witness that he was no gentleman, and that he (defendant) considered himself far above witness in rank and station. This language he followed up by assaulting witness with his walkingstick, and smashing it across his arm. His Worship said that in one aspeect the case was a serious one—if brought up as a criminal charge it would have presented a Berious aspect, seoim-. that the assault was one between two suitors—or rather a plaintiff and defendant—and also that the assault was committed in plaintiff's. p ownshop. The case before him was simply' a question of damage. Leaking at it in that' light, he cmild only take into consideration the injury inflicted, and also the insult offered plaintiff. It was not a case for vindictive d jwnageß, but merely tne result of a little want of temper, though not justified in the slightest degree. To mark the im propriety of the offlnce and" to pay plaintiff for the insult done him, a fine of L 3, with costs, would be inflicted.

Judgment; was given for plaintiffs, by; default, in the following cases, with costs:— William M'Kerras and another v. Louis M'Dermot, claim L2 4s ; Samuel Bird and another v. Lawrence Murphy, L2 5s 9d; •John Campbell v. A. J. Holland, L 3 j Francis Meenan v. Wm. Savage, LlO 3s 6d: John Guthrie v. Thos. M'Kay, 19s. Dunning Bros. v. John Mouat.—Claim L2 4s 9d for fruit supplied. This .case had been adjourned for a week for the production of defendant's wife. She did not now answer to her subpoena, and there was no appearance of defendant. Judgment was given for plaintiff, with costs.