RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume I, Issue 44, 8 November 1851, Page 6

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Lyttelton, Oct. 2.—Alfred Lake sued C. O. Torlesse for 1/. 3s. 6d. for stabling and keep of a horse. Plaintiff swore that lie had applied for payment three months before, when Mr. Torlesse told him that he had no money with him and made no objection to the charge ; that on his applying subsequently, Mr. Torlesse refused payment on the grounds of an overcharge. The defendant pleaded that the demand was extensive ; judgment for debt and costs.

Oct. 3.- —James Hoggan charged by James Halfpenny with being drunk and disorderly, fined 25.6 d. The complaint of Thomas Cox against other parties for obstructing the police in the execution of their uuty, was dismissed.

Christchurcli, Oct. 4.—Williams v. Graham. — Breach of promise of marriage ; damages laid at 10J. It appeared that the banns had been published at the defendant's request, and that the plaintiff had given up the offer of a servant's place in consequence of her intended marriage. A malicious report that she had been staying at Pigeon Bay under the name of " Jones " frightened the defendant on the eve of marriage. Judgement for 51. damages with costs. ■

Lyttelton, Oct. 7. —Before Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Wakefield ; the Agent of the Canterbury Association v, Dampier.—For 12/. balance due on purchase of a Town Section at the land sale. The section had been sold for 24Z., and only a moiety of this sum paid; the defendant refused to pay the balance because he would not take the conveyance offered by the Canterbury Association. Mr. Dampier objected to the conveyance because it did not recite the payment of one-sixth of the purchase money to the Crown and the receipts of some officer for it. Judgment for plaintiff for debt and costs. Mr. Dampier expressed his determination to appeal, if an appeal will lie against the judgment of two Magistrates in their civil jurisdiction.

Agent of the Canterbury Associations. Ferris. — For 18/.; this case was similar to the last, and the Magistrates gave judgment for the plaintiff.

Christchurck, Oct. 11.—John Hughes was charged with having used and occupied land and cut timber upon.it without a license, such land not being comprised within a grant from the Crown. Some Maories, it appeared, had cut wood for building a house by order of the defendant, who undertook to procure a license/ Mr. Hughes pleaded that he had not found Mr. Godley in his office when he first went to apply fora license, but admitted that he had declared his intention of going on with or without a license in spite of Mr. Godley. Fined 51. and costs.

Willockj;. Hughes.—For 51. damages sustained by the defendant's building a house and depasturing cattle on Mr. Willock's run. This was a case of disputed boundary. Mr. Hughes sought to prove that the original description of Mr. Willock's run was essentially different from the description given after Mr. Jollies survey; Mr. Cass explained that the first description of the run was a rectangular block of 500 acres at the back of Mr. Willock's section, and that no accuiate boundaries of unsurveyed land were ever given, that the subsequent description after survey was not inconsistent with the first, the only difference being that 25 acres of freehold had been taken out of his pasturage, and allowance was made accordingly; that it is not necessary to define the exact boundaries of a run until the adjoining land or run is applied for. Judgment for 51. and costs.

Lyttelton, Oct. 17. James Hood was summoned aa the putative father of an illegitimate child, on information of the mother, Mary Ann Ford. Her evidence was taken, and her father and mother were examined separately. The statements of these witnesses were contradictory, and after hearing two of several witnesses, who appeared for the defence, the Kesident Magistrate dismissed the complaint. Christchurch, Ocl 18.—Me Grath v. Bowsher, for B*. balance of account. In the account there was an item of 10s. for the hire of a boat to Gollan's Bay. The plaintiff swore that the charge was correct, as the price had been agreed to ; the defendant swore as positively that he never hired the boat on the occasion referred to. The case was adjourned for further evidence, but was ultimately settled out of Court.

Tinui v. Torlesse.—A Maori claimed 10/. as the value of a dog destroyed by the defendant. The defendant admitted having killed the dog, but stated that the dogs of the Natives had done much injury to his sheep, and Solomon had given him permission to kill them. Solomon qualified this permission as only applying to bad dogs, whereas Mr. Torlesse had shot a very good dog, which was certainly worth 10/. Jack, though not acquainted with the value of dogs in general, was positive that the particular dog killed was worth 101. Tinui was equally certain. The dog had been killed near the native pa, and not upon Mr. Torlesse's run —Judgment for 21. &

Macdonald v. Kaye.—The plaintiff had been shipped at Port Philip to take charge of 5 the defendant's stock on the passage to Canterbury. Mr. Kaye had <i so utrged him since landing, and had paid him what he considered due. The plaintiff

did not object to the amount at the time, but stated that he ought to have some premium for landing the stock safely. This was refused. The plaintiff now claimed this premium, and gave a very different account of his agreement with Mr. Kaye from that which he had been paid upon. Mr. Dampier appeared for the plaintiff. After an examination which lasted two hours, the case was adjourned to the 21st, it was then dismissed.

Lyttelton, Oct. 21. —Kelly v. Fawcett, for wood, 71. 13s. The quantity was disputed. By order of the magistrates the measure of a disputed cord was taken, and found deficient.—Judgment for 5/. 15s. 9d.

Christchurch, Oct. 25.—Morgan v. Greig, for 1 91. The plaintiff claimed to be a partner in James Greig's contracts, and entitled to a share of the receipts, but failed to prove his partnership.—Case dismissed.

Day v. Thompson, for 161., freight of goods lrom Lyttelton. Some of the goods had been much injured by salt water. The defendant stated that this injury arose from the plaintiff's neglect, the boat having- been left without any man on board, and claimed a proportionate deduction from the freights charged. The plaintiff denied that the boat had been neglected while the goods were on board, and the case was adjourned for further evidence.