COBDEN.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1098, 3 February 1872, Page 2

COBDEN.

': :•.•".•; :yF,BiDAT, Febrjtaby. 2.C. ; ] .., „^. f .~ ; /:, (Before Caleb Whifefe crvii. cASEsi •' ''' : v: ,'''■-' r- iJ# : Bacon v. Wallace and jSkinner.r^An.v; action to recover'' Llß' damages alleged to : have been incurred in cutting down a tree and trespassing on plaintiff's land, at Coal Creek., .The defendants are timber merchants, and occupy sections adjoining , plaintiff. There was some . mistake re-" " specting a boundary Jine,, which defend?*, ants "contended they mistook for Va road-' 1 line,and on being cautioned by plaintiff, they left a. tree which they had felled and cut up on the .ground; Plaintiff, who^ „ was very positive in giving evideticey said that he bought the.landon which the tree . ritood because he | was a public behefactori ; He valued the timber at Lli, and^he charged Is "for loss of dignity!" Mr Lewis, Government .Surveyor, considered the boundary-line Tiaras i well defined. The defendants admitted the , trespass and paid. Is into Court. The "value of the_ standing timber was about- 6d. per 10Ort,| * but when it was felled it t was worth lamore per 100 ft. u His Worship, who exhibited a great amount of i patience, gave judgment for 9s 6d, being thevalue of the timber; ancl Is trespass, arid ordered defendants to pay the costs. 5 ' : v ? ' :<< {Q-i.'i? Baker v. Stalker.— A claim for Ll |f or altering and;shifting ; a chimney^ "Plai&i. tiff had undertaken to erect, a chimney at the signal station, (which did not suit the defendant,, who is the signal master, and he requested Baker to alter it. Tkker agreed to do spif Mr Mirfin, the overseer f of the works,; sanctioned; the alteration. Mr Mirfin did so provided Stalker paid for the alteration.. Some very ..contradictory' evidence was tbridered, J but' l at' all/ events an alteration was'proved in the size of the chimney different from the specifications. His Worship, gave judgment for the amount claimed. M'Gill v. Pothan.^Claim pxfUfflM* .lid. Judgmentby default. • ' ' ihw * Judgment by default. ; .--'— ■ Warren v. Shearhan.— An: action ; for v Ll6 on an I- OTJI : Judgment for amount claimed.; ; ;. .-■ L-? - ".--'-. *:.l ■ :-•;/■. |r.v Long v. Long;— -An application for a protection order under .the Married Women's Protection Act; , and that the children be placed under the care of the mother. From the evidence of Mrs Long, it appeared that: the defendant, who is at present a prisoner in H.M. Gaol at Cobden, had Ul-used. her ;for/»period of three years, which she ascribed to a species of insanity resulting from an attack of,, sunstroke. Since last October ? she had received no support from him.:; He had offered to buy her some things in » Greymouth, but refused to pay for £he - support of the. children. A son of the defendant was called, who stated that his father had riot supported the famiiy, whereas he ; and His- brother > had contributed over LSOO towards that purpose/ It was contended on behalf of the defendant that no positive assault had beetiX proved although it was admitted that' ho had threatened her. His Worship reserved his decision till to-morrow (this day), at 10 o clock. -'•> -■>•-■'