RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Kumara Times, Issue 2965, 4 May 1886, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, April 30. [Before J. Giles, Esq., R.M.] LAND TRANSFER. Catherine Kyder v. J. Cairns.— Action to recover £IOO damages for failing to give transfer and title to a section of land bought by plaintiff from defendant. Mr~M. Hannan, for plaintiff; Mr Kitchingham for defendant. The solicitors for the parties effected a settlement.—Case struck out. Several debt cases were heard and disposed of. CATTLE TRESPASS. Keech and Malloy v. Francis A. Olden.—Claim, £1 16s, for tiespass and damage caused by defendant's cattle on plaintiffs' land at Teremakau. Mr Purkiss appeared for complainant ; the defendant conducted his own case. James Malloy, sworn, stated : I have j driven defendant's cattle thousands of ■ times out of our paddock; I am positive I have done it hundreds of times ; I have hunted the boy to drive out the cattle, and. the boy's dog has hunted our cattle. I am positive the cattle were always in the paddock when I went j there, and the boy lying in the paddock with them. Defendant has defied me to do anything, because the land is u n fenced. Defendant : Where were you when ] my cattle were in your paddock ? Witness: Why, looking at them. Defendant : Did your sheep not trespass on my land ? Witness: The pet lamb might. Defendant: Are the fifty sheep you had in the paddock all pet lambs? The Court held that this question was irrelevant; if plaintiffs' sheep trespassed upon defendant's land, defendant, has the same remedy plaintifis have; taken to-day. F. A. Oidcn, sworn, said : My r-.|lln t>n? only tinned out in the day time, i always send a boy with I hem to feed : the boy did not lie with the cattle, an! the rattle conld only he a short time j,, (he paddock, for the dog the boy h;-, ( ; ■with him was highly trained and "would not lot ihe, cattle trespass. Plaintiffs' land is undefined, thev have renin-. .■•' the fence. PiainfiliV cattle tiosp.is.s on my land on the opposite side of the road. The Court, in giving judgment, stated that, there uve two .ii-.ii ( .a, laws in the colony veyartlui" the liespuss of

cattle. In Nelson, Marlborough, and Westland damages could be. recovered although the land was not fenced; whilst in every other part of New Zealand, unless the land «as fenced no damages could he recovered, and impounding was the only redress. Judgment would be for 18s; Court fees, 6s; solicitor's fee, £1 Is.