RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Manawatu Herald, Volume II, Issue 99, 6 August 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

--•> "Wednesday, August 4, 1880. (Before B. Ward, Esq., R.M.) The Court opened at 10 a.in. There was no criminal business. CIVIL cases.Chapman v. Hodder and Mason. — Claim £4:2, for services as engineer. Defendants put in a large set-off. Mr Hankins appeared for plaintiff.— His Worship said he had received the following letter from Mr Staite, solicitor for defendants : — Palmerston North, August 3, 1880. R. Ward, Esq., B.M. Dbab Siu, — Hodder and 'Mason at suit Chapman — I hnve the honor to apply, on defendants' behalf, for an adjournment till next Court day — oh usual teims. Defend, ants saj they have a good defence, and, living in Wellington, aieunable to attend tomorrow. — \V. S. Staite. Mr-. Hanl^ins hoped his .Worship would refuse to accede to the request. One .of -the <- defendants- -was present (Mr Mason),. and if an adjournment were- desired proper reasons should he given. Many contingencies might arise throiigh an adjournment by wliich grave injustice would be done to. his client.--: His Worship said that if he were in' a large town he would quite agree with the. course suggested by Mr Hankins, and insist on counsel appearing in support of an application for adjomnment. He thought, however, that ih these "scattered districts it -would be almost impossible to adhere* to that practice. His rule was to grant adjournments "where the person asking for it was willing to pay expenses. Defendants in this case were willing to do so, and he should therefore grant the adjournment;. -r-Case adjourned, flsfendauts to pay costs, amounting to .£2 18s. * Davies-and Stewart v. Epopo Te Hoia, and others. — Claim £5, for damages, through trespass on a block of land known as Manawatn Kukutauaki No 7d. — Mr'Hankins opened the case for plaintiffs, and briefly statecL that his clients did. not "wish to obtain damages, but td *^w the defe*odants they had no right to the laud in question.— John,; Davies deposed— l hold this land, which has been trespassed upon ; I produce the lease ; I am in possession of "Ehe land ; the lease is dated August 7, 1878 ; the .defendants are not parties to the .lease ; the Fraud Commissioner's endorsement is oii the lease, in which Mr Stewart is my partner ; on July .21 I was on the land ; the first man I saw was 'liopera ; he hud a gnn in .his. Hand; I- told Him' he was * trete* passing, and .told him to leave ; , I also ' 'saw '•Kiriona," Epopo, - and George; I told ..them- they were trespassing, and they gave me a dirty answer; I took Mr Alzdorf with ; nie, and showed him the boundaries mentioned in the lease, also the spot j ? where they were trespassing ; on the "21st July, one of my men, named . Walter Davidson, was with me; I have never given defendants permission to enter on .the land-.; the timber was Manuka poles, which they were cutting ; I have estimated my loss at £5 in the summons, but I am not desirous of -obtaining compensation so much. as to establish my claim to the "land. Cross-examined' by defen-danti-^lt isthbt fot T inekto '. .tel| yyovc . whether I was* to cut timber or flax ; there is the lease.-^Mr,Hankins said i defendant not being a lessor had no right to refer the lease at all. The question was"! was he "trespassing. — ! In reply to His Worship, Mr Davies

said the land in question had been not mentioned-ragrantees, bu| their . names jra»e endorsed on .the J^ack_ of the tribe.— W. Dft-si-^" -idn, af^vant of Mr Davies', de|Mßd ffiphe saw defendant on the 4>i>v ths trespass was committed on tjtte g^ijihd in', question. — Walter cid^rf j lid^BJsecf surveyor, deposed •that on tiite 3rd instant he, in company wittr-Mr Davies, visited the block of land in question; the spot where the trespass was committed, jivas wity-gjfche bpjmdaries of the., ... |"blocl, :r as stated mthe schedule to the 1 lease ; the(iWlue .timber he saw cut would! be*about JBB or -fi'4.—Tata-•vtti-n -ha^catsterdeposed -he knew the land in question, 1 and w»s residing .-upon it ; he knew the place where Me -tce'spass 1 was committed, . and beheved'it was* 6n the block leased by Mr Davi&.-^This concluded the plaintiff's l case. — Defendant called Tamiihaua' :te Hoea, . who deposed— I am pne .of the lessors of this land ; although Epopo is not in the certificate he is on the back of it ; this land .Belongs- to me and. my elder brother ; a subsequent decision has been made, awarding it to me; the ten grantees have no power over it ; seven persons have been adjudged to be the owners. — In reply' to his Worship, witness •» stated that the certificate of title was - issued with the names of ten persons in it.— Examination continued— The land has been subdivided, and the seven have power over this piece ; the ten have their land outside ; Major fieaphy gave the judgment last January ; according to the copy of the agreement I have in my pocketbook, the natives were to cut timber and flax.— Mr Hankins said the • only reservation in the lease was that the natives were allowed to cat«h eels in the streams on the land. — Witness said Dr. Buller said the lease was the same as the original agreement, which contained a reservation that ' they could cut timber and flax. —His Worship said if Dr. Buller had misled them, he could not help it, nor could the Court go behind the lease.—Witness persisted in his statement that the agreement to lease contained the provision stated by him, and said that when he signed the lease, if it contained different provisions, they must have been drenched with liquor. — Kiriona, another grantee, said that he had, in conjunction with Tamihana, made the lease in Wellington, and supported Tamihana's statements as to the reservations made ; this was the first time they heard that Mr Davies had a right to the timber ; the agreement held by Tamihana was what they had always gone on. — His - Worship said he must recognise the lease as conveying the land during the term to Mr Davies, who had to pay rent and observe the conditions. The timber there Mr Davies should take care of; he had no power to sell, or let the timber be taken away. He could ouly take what was needed for station purposes. If he permitted it to be taken away, the lessors could sue him for damaging then* property. No person could enter on the property without permission from Mr Davies. Judgment for plaintiff for £5 and costs, *£4 7s. «.-,.•'■; Same v. Tiopera. — Claim ss, for trespass. Defendant admitted the* trespass, and judgment was given for plaintiff for amount and costs, 2Gs. Bussell Bros. v. Alzdorf.— Claim £8 3s. Judgment by consent for amount and costs, Bs.