Feilding R.M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 162, 11 January 1896, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court.

Friday, January 10, 1896. i (Before Mr R. L. Stanford, S.M.) i R. Crichton v. W. F. Goodwin ; claim ' £5 2s. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Judg- 1 ment for amount claimed with costs Bs, solicitor's fee 15s 6d. i J. Darragh v. H. Collins and W. Moore ; ' claim £10 6s Bd. Mr Esam, who ap- J peared on behalf of Mr Sandilands, for ( plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed ' against defendant Moore, with costs 15s, • solicitor's fee 15s 6d. ' J. Norman v. Young Kuun ; claimed ' £89sl0d. Mr Esam for plaintiff. Judg- ] ment for amount claimed with costs Bs, ' and solicitor's fee 15s 6d. : F. Cummings v. W. J. Goodwin ; claim i £2 4s. Mr Reade for plaintiff. Judg- < ment for amount claimed with costs 5s i and solicitor's fee ss. G. Lyon v. W. J. Goodwin ; claim £5 ] 6s 6d. Mr Reade for plaintiff. Judg- \ ment for amount claimed with costs Bs, < solicitor's fee 15s 6d. j j F. J. Burrell v. W. J. Goodwin ; claim i £29 6s 9d. Mr Reade for plaintiff. 1 Judgment for amount with costs 235, solicitor's fee 31s 6d, W. A. Sandilands v. J. P. Banuister ; claim 13s 4d. Mr Esam for plaintiff. : Judgment for amount claimed with costs ss. Kirton and Curtis v. E Gallichan; claim £7 10s. Mr Esam for plaintiffs. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 15s, solicitor's fee 15s 6d. John Ducker v. W. C. Boyd; claim £17 2s 6d. Mr Esam for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 15s, solicitor's fee 15s 6d. C. S Goodwin v W. Davy and Patterson ; claim £19. Mr Reade for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 255, solicitor's fee 15s 6d. T. W. Hall v W. Davy and G. Patterson ; claim £24. Mr Reade for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs, solicitor's fee 21s. G. S. Hodgkinson v W. Davy and G. Patterson ; claim £18. Mr Reade for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs, solicitor's fee 15s 6d. In connection with the three cases against Davy and Patterson, which were claims under the Workmen's Wages Lien Act, Mr Esam applied, on behalf of W. Bell, the employer, who held £40, the balance due to defendants on the contract, for the direction of the Court as to whom the money was to be paid, an assignment having been made of £28 by the parties to the suit to Mr Tompkins, who had lodged his claim with W. Bell. Mr Esam said that evidence would be called to show that these workmen were co-partners and not entitled to claim under the Workmen's Wages Lien Act. The application was granted and the case will be heard next Court day. Joseph Darragh v. John Horn, junr. ; claim £23 8s 4d. Mr Esam for plaintiff. This was a case in wbich the plaintiff desired to ascertain from defendant whether he was the real defendant in a previous action against William Horn, in which case judgment was given for plaintiff. Defendant, on being examined, deposed that he had no dealings with plaintiff. The case was struck out, 8s being allowed defendant for expenses. Wm. Darragh v. Hakaraia te Wheno. This was an application for a rehearing, made by Mr Reade on behalf of defendant. Re-hearing granted, to be heard next Court day. Jas. Purkiss v. R. Whale ; a judgment summons, claim £6 4s ld. Mr Esam for judgment creditor, and Mr Reade for defendant. Debtor was examined as to his ability to pay the amount of claim. Adjourned by the Court for three months, the defendant, iv the meantime, to pay something off the claim. Kiwitea N County Council v. C. L. Bath. Mr Richmond for plaintiff Council and Mr Esam for defendant. This was an action taken by the Council to secure an order of the Court requiring defendant to remove a fence and house from encroaching on land, in Beaconsfield, alleged to belong to tbe public. The defence was on the ground of a bona fide right to place the buildine and fence where they were, and tbe question resolved into one of title. Mr Richmond, in opening the case for the Council, said the action was taken under 'section 134 of the Public Works Act, 1894, sub-section 1. The dispute arose over the defendant fencing in a strip of land running parallel to the road through the Beaconsfield township, which was originally sections 162 and 165, township of Sandon, owned by Roxburgh and Caldwell. Tbe disputed land was used for road purposes pripr to the present road beiug made, the bush having been felled in 1876 by the Government before the township sections were laid off. No amount of non user would vest the road in the owners of the adjoining property. Edmund Goodbehere, deposed: Was clerk to tbe Kiwitea County Council; produced minute book of the Council showing resolution of the Council passed on November 27th, authorising the present action ; had seen Mr Bath's house where it was erected ; the building was commenced about January, 1895. Cross-examined: The Kiwitea Road District was merged into the Kiwitea County in 1893 by special Act; the' Kiwitea County was originally a portion of the Oroua County ; as clerk of the the County bad correspoudence with Mr Bath on the subject ; nad not that correspondence in Court; and could not say, from memory, if Mr Bath claimed from the first that he was erecting the fence and house on his own property; it was first noticed tbat Mr Bath was encroaching on the road when he commenced to erect the fence at the beginning of last year ; there has been no Road Board within the area of the Kiwitea County except tbe Kiwitea Road Board, which was formed about 1882. Re-examined : Defendant was notified that his fence and house were on the road. William Frederick Jacob deposed : Was Chairman of the Kiwitea County Council; authorised Mr Richmond to take the necessary proceedings in the present case. Cross-examined : As soon as the matter was brought before the Council Mr Bath was notified that his fence and house were encroaching on the road|; the reason the action was not taken sooner was because they had to take a fresh survey of the road to prove definitely the house was on the road ; and to .search tbe titles in Wellington ; they had no doubt about the house being on the road but they wished to know how much. Frank Owen deposed : Was an authorised surveyor ; prepared plan produced of a strip of land at Beaconsfield on ' which Mr Bath's house was erected; (he explained the plan in detail). Cross-examined : Prepared the plan > from survey made from the information he received from the original plan of the 1 seotions lodged in the Survey Office. 1 John Paul deposed ; Was a farmer residing at Beaconsfield ; resided there < for 19 years ; when witness went there, « there was uo road; about November ' 1876 the Government sent up surveyors < and men who laid out the road and the 1 bush was felled ; what is the present road being left in standing bush ; this J was about November 1876 ; no road was ] formed at this time ; the Government mea felled the bush and rolled the logs aside ; the settlers turned out and cor- j daroyed tbe swamps ; the stumps were \ cut flush with tho ground ; the two Bismarks, War eh am, and Irwin, did tho f. corduroying; tbey had no otber road ( than this ; it might "have been four or i five years after when the present road j was formed. t Cross-examined.: The block was origin - f ally known ai the Saadon township and i

consisted of aboitt ?2!4 ; or 80 tbousafld acres ; Beaconsfield was a private to#nship and not Government ; Downes, surveyor, laid off the sections ; !the> fiifst road was made before the land was sold to anyone. ' ~A Richard Jas. Stewart, deposed: Was a farmer residing at Beaconsfield ; went there in March, 1878; used the strip of land claimed by Mr Bath as a road for a number of years ; it was felled and and , cleared about 16 feet wide ; a'dray could not be got along tbe road at tbat time ; no earth work was done to the road; used this road for about three years; the Government paid for the work of felling the bnah ; believed' the road through section 297 was purchased about 1881 or 1882; no past of the original road has been nsed asa road for about 14 years. > F. Owen, re-called, deposed: The title produced was a certified copy of Mr Bath's title ; this was' the first time he had seen the title, and the scale corresponded with that on tbe plan prepared by him and showed Mr Bath's honse to be encroaching on the road. Cross-examined : There were no distances on this title to show the width of the streets; the original Government" road was a straight line. ' • "A-> Re-examined: The most of Govern- y ment roads we_e drawn oat in a straight line in the office. A A W. Phynn, deposed : Was a settler in Beaconsfield ; when he went np first the roads were being cleared in the Kiwitea Block; the road along the disputed ground was felled and cleared about half a chain wide ; 30 per cent of the cost of the land was devoted to clearing the road ; the road was surveyed by Mr Northcott in a straight line and then a deviation made by Mr Barton; there were no other means of getting out, except along the track on tbe land now in dispute, for five years. Cross-examined: Went to Beaconsfield in 1877 ; Mr Downes surveyed the township, which belonged to Mr Caldwell before it was sold in township seotions ; since 1882 the public did not nse the road on the disputed land for road purposes, but for recreation. A Edwin Irwin deposed : Was a farmer residing at Beaconsfield ; went there in 1877 ; used the track over the disputed land as a road for seven years ; assisted to corduroy the swamps on this road to I make it passable for horse traffic. Cross-examined: This road went to | the end of the block and there stopped ; the disputed land bas riot been nsed as a thoroughfare since the metalled road was finished. Chas. Bray, junr., deposed : Was Engineer to the Kiwitfea County Council ; was acquinted with Beaconsfield ; - bad « , travelled along tbe road on tbe disputed land from tbe latter part of 1876 to 1880; the bush was felled and cleared on this road; considered this a public road at that time; assisted Mr Owen to make tbe plan produced. Cross-examined : Did not know the name of tbe surveyor who surveyed the first road line, but' Mr Barton surveyed the deviation; the pablio had not an uninterrupted access to a chain wide all along the road in question, it being a few feet narrow in one place. Re-examined : A portion of the road could not he repaired without damaging the fence. Adjourned till the 24th instant, by consent. J. C. Thompson v. Mrs M. A. Bowen ; claim £3 10s. Mr Prior for plaintiff and Mr Esam for defendant. This was a' - claim for rent at 10s per weejc,,, alleged ' to be due in respect of a verbal agreement made between plaintiff and defendant's manager for the lease of prem* ises* The defence was that the shop was leased by the week and that plaintiff could give it up at any time ; but the plaintiff denied this, and said the shop was let to defendant for three v ' months. Mr J. C. Thompson gave evidence in support of the claim, and Mr Hudson, manager for Mrs Bowen, gave evidence for the defence. Judgment for amount claimed, with costs 18s and solicitor's fee 21s. , . .'.,-. The Court then adjourned. In all the cases in which Mr Esam appeared he did so on behalf of Mr W. A. Sandilands.