RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Inangahua Times, Volume III, Issue 74, 7 February 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Satuedat, Pebhuabt, 3rd 1877. [Before Edward Shaw, Esq., R.M.^ NEVItLB V. IJUII.SO.N. This was a complaint against the rle* fentlaqt for wron,gfyl interference with business sections No. 3k13-4 in the town of Reefton,. Mr Pitt appeared for the complainant and Mr Staite appeared for the defence. Mj? P}tt baring opened tfye ca^e for the

plaintiff, called Charles Langton Neville, who said : 0n Friday, the 19th January I wanted ground on which to erect a private dwelling, and made enquiries, and upon the result telegraphed to the Waste Lagds Board, Nelson. Received a reply from the Commissioner, stating that sections 343 and 344 had not been parchased. Searched the records and found that no business licenses lor the sections were in existence for the sections. On the 23rd of January took out business licenses for the sections and pegged them out. Wrote to defendant on the same day, and saw him on the 25tb, when I read the letter to him. He refused to take the letter, saying that he had nothing whatever to do with the sections. Had spoken to him on the 24th. He then said that he had heard that I had pegged opt his sections. I then said " then they are yoar seen tions ?'' when he said " they are, but you won't get them." After I read the letter to him on the 25th I asked him why he had said on the previous day that the sections wero his, and he admitted having said so. I then asked him if he wonld give up the sections, when he said that the sections were Dowsings. I pegged out the sections in accordance with, the Begu» lations and renewed the pegging on the 25th. Defendant continues to occupy the sections, and thereby interferes with my possession. Cross-examined— -I enquired about the sections before I telegraphed to Nelson. I ascertained that the seclons in dispute were supposed to belong to oae Sebnght. Was not aware that Nelson was living on the sections. I searched and found ifjat Sebright ha<l no business licenses. First heard Dowsing's same mentioned is conneelion with the sections on the 25th. I am not aware that Dowsing came to the Court on the 22ad to obtain business l ; censes. Did not see Dowsing on that day. Saw a boy in the street near the Southern Cross Hotel. Have heard since that some boy had been at the Court for business licenses. On the 33rd a boy came to me in the street and asked me when the Clerk to the Bench would return. Cannot say what boy it was. The boy now in Courtis the one. I told htm I believed the Clerk would return on the following day. It was after the boy spoke to me that I took up the sections. Subsequently I saw Mr Temperley and asked him if the Court was open. He said it was. I asked him i" he was em* powered to issue business licenses, and he said he was noi, but he would take the money and give me a receipt, and cHJ so, I may have told Nelson that I was aware Dealing's boy had been at the Court for business licenses. It was after 10 o'clock when J. pegged oqt the sections. Acting upon advice I wrote the letter produced to defendant. Defendant would not leave the ground, and J was therefore kept out of possession. Have been on the ground frequently since the pegging. By the Bench— -Swear positively that at the time the boy spoke to me about business licenses I had no knowledge that Dowsing in any way claimed the sections. Before J pegged out the soctions I informed Sebright's representative that I was willing to purchase the sections at a reasonable figure. This conversation took place on Sunday, the 2}st. He stated that he would write to Sebright and ins form him of my offer, as he knew exactly where he (Sebright) was, and could do it belter than I could, I have been informed since by him that he never wrote to Sebrigbt. John Temperley : I am bailiff of the Resident Magistrates Court, and acted as Olerk during Mr Lucas' absence. I opened the Warden's office and kept it open, in office hours during the Clerk's absence. On the 22nd I met Mr Neville and told him what he has related. On the evening of the 241 h Dowsing's boy came to mo and asked for business licenses. It was then after five o'clock, I told him the office had boen open all the week. On the 2Gth the boy returned, and applied for the refund of the money he bad deposited for the licenses. Cross-examined : Swear that Dowsing never spoke to me on Monday. I kept the office open on Monday, but may have been absent for a few minutes at the Telegraph or Post-office. By the Bench : I closed the office at luncheon hour for about half-an-hour. Charles Dowsing : I know sections 334 and 335. They were in the occupation of a man named Seabright, but on his leaving Beefton they were given to me as security for a debt due by Seabright. On the 13th January Sehjight told me the licanses were out, and he recommended me to renew them. I was unwell that week, and neglected to take out the licenses. At about two o'clock on the Monday referred to, I went to the clerk's office to take out the licenses?, but found tbe office closed. Cross-examined : X did not tell my hoy to come to the Court and asl? far a refund of the license money. Thomas Rose : I have been three months in Mr Dowsjng's employ. I have seen Mr Neville passing the shop almost every day during that time. I had in* structions from Dowsing to, procure busi« ness licenses for the sections in question, and at 12 o'clock on the 2.3rd January I went to the Court and found the office door closed. I did not try to open; tbe door. I returned home. Cross-examined : On the Thursday I received, a telegram from, Dowsing, wjw

was in Greymouth, instructing me to not mind taking out the licenses, as Dowsing would return on the following day, but I had previously deposited the money for the licenses. I did not know whether I could get the money back, so I just asked for it for my own information to see if I should be able to get it, Frederick Neil3on : I am in the occupation of the sections referred to, bat I do not claim them. Sebrishfc owned them. Saw Mr Nenille on the Wednesday evening, and told him he had been rery smart pegging of tUe sections. I did not fell him that the sections were mine. He told me that Charley Dowsing's boy had been to the Court for licenses, and he (Mr Neville) might just as veil have the sections 83 Dowsing. This closed the case. The Warden said that the case was undoubtedly one involving considerable hardship, but there could be no doubt that defendant was legally entitled to the ground. It was quite clear that but for the of tlie office of the Court having been closed when defendant went to renew the licenses, he wquld have gerfected his title. The title of the defendant mast, therefore, date back to his intention of receiving the licenses, for fee could not be prejudiced by the office bein^ closed. DeaMng with the matter under the equitable jurisdtc; ion coa'ei red, he (the Warden) would bold (be occupation of tbe de* fondant to be good. Defendant, however, was not without blame iv the matter, as be bad admitted that he allowed a whole week to elapse between tbe espiry of tbe licenses and bis proceeding to the Court. Tbe application would, therefore, be dismissed, defendant to retain the sections and pay £2 co^ts.