MAGISIRATE'S COURT, HOKITIKA

Hokitika Guardian, 14 October 1921, Page 3

MAGISIRATE'S COURT, HOKITIKA

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13th. (Before AA’m. Meldrum Esq., S.M.) AFTERNOON SITTING. The Court resumed at 2 p.tn. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES CONTINUED Win'. Oldefog (Air AYclls) v. Rudolph Lnuisch fMr Murdoch) and lri Poliawai (Mr Park) a. claim for £lO damages for trespass. George Toinui, also gave evidence and was cross-examined at length. Rudolph Louisrh deposed he resided at Aralmra. Ho examined the feme claimed by Olderog. Tn tho centre boundary there was a portion not properly fenced. Tt was the last fencing put up hv Olderog. At tho creek there were 3 barb wires, at one point under the wires it was 9 feet. AV itness never interfered with Olderog’s wires. Have no property in these cattle. To Mr Wells.-The creek hanks were easy to negotiate by any cattle. After counsel''had addressed tho Court. His Worship said he did not have any difficulty in .leeiding on the point of jurisdiction that ho had the power. On the question of title that defendant raised, tlie first that she was tile successor to her late mother had lint been proved as she had not so far been appointed, and therefore had no legal right to make any claim to the land in question, and therefore, there was no question of title to the 1 land as far as she was eeneerned, and she. had no legal title to set up. Olderog’s title, ah far as the lease is - oncerned gives him a title as a tenant ati will. He is legally in possession and therefore the female defendant was guilty of trespass. The only point to decide was as to the question of fencing. He. was not satisfied that it was proved the land was fenced in accordance with tho Fencing Act. From the evidence it appeared that, at one part of thcafonce it is quite easy for stock to pass freely in and out. He proposed to take ad van- j luge of eounsel’s offer and view the ground, his decision resting on wlmt attitude he took oil the fencing qtlcstion after viewing it. , LICENSING ACT. A resident of Mananiii. for whom Mr Murdoch appeared, was charged by tlie police with being on licensed premises, (Commercial Hotel) on a. Sunday afternoon. After hearing evidence of Constable (,)uinn and defendant the charge was dismissed. AY. Robinson and Son. (Mr Pilkingtmi), v. I!. Mncklev and Co., claim for £1(10 13s -I<l for dishonoured promissory note. Judgment for plaintiff with costs £5, after defendant had stated that hi' had a substantial contra against, plaintiff, and his Worship had advised him to consult a solicitor on the 'matter.

FRIDAY. IKTORKU I I|h. Tills limriliiig his Worship completed liis judgment, lie stated that he had Visited the ground' on the previous evening. The merits ol the case, lie considered were with tlu* plaintiff hut lie had found that the fence at tho creek crossing, did not strictly ~(imply with the Fencing Act. He therefore must give judgment lor tho delemlaiits lint as he cmsidered the merits lay with the plaintiff lie would not allow costs. DISPUTED DEBT CAKE. Charles Daniel Fisher (Mr Murdoch) V. David Diedrichs (Mr I’ilkillgtoli) a claim for £l(s. balance of account for repairs to motor car. Defendant counter claimed fur to ds, benzine used, loss of time of use of ear and cost of subsequent repairs. • Tlie Court was engaged from 9.30 a.m. till we went to press, hearing the case, a number of witnesses being examined at great length. (Left Kitting.)