RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume XV, Issue 1994, 28 December 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA.

Wednesday, December, 23. (Before 0. Broad, Esq., R.M.) ASSAULT. Maurice Doolan was summoned on a charge of assaulting Michael Erskine on 21st December. The parties are farmers at Totara-Flat, and near neighbors, and the cause of the quarrel was the straying of the • plaintiff's horses into the defendant's .pasture land. The complainant alleged that the defendant threw, stones at the animals, and used unnecessary mis was especially the case witn a mare in foal, and on the complainant remonstrating with the defendant on his conduct, he struck the complainant on the mouth, drawing blood arid otherwise injuring him. in cross-examination the complafnant said the defendant's cattle had often broken into his cropped land, but he never attempted to shoot or injure them in driving them out. The defendant did not maintain his fences properly, if he did. the horse could not get into his pastures. He admitted ,' that he dared the defendant to hit him, and told the defendant if he did he wosild ; send him to "do garrison duty" again. In explanation of this, the plaintiff said that the phase had reference to a term of ; imprisonment the defendant had prej viously undergone for an assault on ! another person. The defence was a denial that -the defendant ever struck the plaintiff j that he suffered constant annoy- . ance from the trespasses of, the plaintiff's cattle on his lands ; and that the plaintiff used great provocation towards the defendant, taunting him with previous occurrences which did not concern him, and otherwise insulting him. A witness was called to prove that the assault, if any, were committed, was of a very trifling nature. The Magistrate considered an assault had been committed, and although the defendant might have received some provocation, he was iiot justified in taking the law into his own hauds. Fined 20s, with 10s costs. Mr Staite appeared for the defendant. CIVIL OASES. The Statute of Limitations. -^-Doolan ,y. Murray.— His Worship gave judgment in this case, which has been several times before, the Court. In the first instance, the plaintiff,, formerly a storekeeper: at Duffer Greek, sued the defendant, a miner,! for goods, amounting to L 44 33:4 d, ob-i •tainedf as alleged, during the years 1868-9.; Atthe first hearing the plaintiff wasnon-i suited, because of apoint raised that there! was nothing to show that the in Bankruptcy, in whose hands the plaintiff's, estate was vested, since the cause of action of arose, had not been paid the debt, The plaintiff brought his case on again, and showed, or rather it was admitted by the other side, that the debt sued upon, passed among others, by deed from the Trustee to the defendant, who purchased the book debts of his estate,^ after his insolvency from the Trustee. A : nonsuit point was again raised by Mr Shapter, who appeared throughout for the defendant, that in consequence of the i length of^ time which had elapsed since the debt was contracted, and the date of taking action to recover, the claim under .the. provisions of the Statute of Limitations, and could not be entertained by the Court. Hia Worship reserved judgment at the last sitting of the Court, which he now gave. After reviewing the evidence and commenting on it at length, the Magistrate alluded to the different phases the partnership, of which, the defendant was a member had assumed, and the consequent changes of the names of those he held liable in the plaintiff 's books. There was Walsh, Shea, and party, then Michael Murray and Co., then Ryan and Dwyer and party, and lastly, an alterat oa back to Murray and Co. His Worship referred to the several payments made, with the amount and date of each, and held first that no moneyawere paid by Murray

or with his consent since October; 1868; secondly, that no application had been made to Murray for .payment since that date ; and thirdly, that the accounts showed a balance struck on 24th October, 1868, as per bill of particulars furnished. A payment of L 35 0s 8d had been made on the following 15th December, but an increase of L4l lls 10d had been made in the balance as. settled in October. This payment "was made on account of the additional debt, not by Murray ,"but by Ryan, who made up part of the amount in labor done by himself, as" admitted by ; ; the plaintiff. /-/His:: Worship quoted the | case "Burland "v. Nash (Lindley pni Partnership);" and relying an ;^the . XH Section of " The Mercantile Law Amend- \ mentf :Actj I860," nonsuited the plaintiff ; with full costs. Mr Staite for the plain- : tiff, Mr Shapter for the defendant. ! Potham v. Godfrey.— A claim of L6for| work done as a Carrier. Judgment by; consent, .for r; the,, amount claimed,.,. with ; costs.' '' ' ' ' ' : '""■" '■■■■•■■-• ' ■ ' ; M'Givray v. Sinclair.-— A claim of Ll4 < 10s, balance of contract money for build- i ing a cottage. There was no appearance! of thedefendant, and a verdict was given j for the plaintiff for the. amount claimed, \ with costs. L . ./ .-''■■. ■! ■ The' Court adjourned to 14th January ' 1875. _;■'■■ ' ■--