MANAWATU DISTRICT COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume II, Issue 88, 29 June 1880, Page 3

MANAWATU DISTRICT COURT.

♦ (Before His Honor Judge Hardcastle.) The above Court opened at Pal-' merston North on Monday, June 21. The only case down for hearing was EBOKA PAREHA V. W. OSBOBNE. This was an action for trespass brought by plaintiff, a native residing at Oroua Bridge, against the defendant, a 'farmer occupying native land in the same locality. Damages were laid at £115, and it was alleged that the defendant had, in addition to the trespass, cut down and carried away ; timber belonging to the plaintiff of the value of £84, which sum was also claimed as special damage. Mr Hawkins, with him Mr Staite, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Hankins* with him Mr Perkins, for the defendant. Neither side exercised its privilege of calling a jury, and the case was therefore heard and decided by the Judge. r From the evidence it appeared that in 1869 defendant entered into an agreement for a lease of 400 acres of land from plaintiff and another native, and that in 1875 a fresh arrangement was made between the parties whereby the plaintiff was to have an additional 200 acres. It was alleged on $he part of th.c plaintiff that the additional acreage was to be taken by ** extending the river frontage ten chains at the north and south ends of the 400 acres, and by shifting the eastern boundary, line of the block further to the eastward, and parallel with the frontage, to include the quantity ; whilst the defendant contended that the agreement was that he should have 100 acres at the north . and south ends of the block. A vast amount of evidence was taken upon this question, and also as to which of the parties had possession of the land alleged to have been trespassed upon. In the course of the examination of the witnesses, however, it was elicited that the defendant Osborne bad in 1875. erected a. fence across the northern end of the block — the place of the alleged trespass, — and had cleared gome of the land and sown it ingrass ; also, that ail the timber which has been felled by him was within the fence, v .. . . . Thief examination of the Witnesses occupied from Monday morning until Wednesday evening. On Thursday morning, Mr Hahr kins addressed tne Court at consider- * able length on behalf of>the defendant, and Mr Hawkins replied in a lengthy address dn behalf of the plaintiff.; His Honor, in giving judgment, ■ said he had no doubt about the case. The defendant: had dearly proved possession of the land, and without entering into %hsr other parti of the defence, he considered defendant was on that ground entitled to » verdict. The judgment of the- Court would theiefore be for the defendant* with costß. ttei •■•- ' '■••'• ... ; ■