Residant Magistrate's Court, Foxton.

Manawatu Herald, 8 November 1889, Page 3

Residant Magistrate's Court, Foxton.

(Beiore H. W. Brabant Fnq., 8.M.) "Wednesday^ . 6th November. Thomas Clune v H^nry Barber' Ul 13s lid, Mr Baker applied for adjou nment f o next court day, Dec* 4th. Agre d to. W. 5. MoKee v. Jack & Co claim £39 Ts 6d. Adjourned to 4th Dew on af»p*iication of pLiintiff JvViUiam tiayes v. William Stephimspn—claim £8 Bs. Mr Eay appealed- for defendant. Adjourned a Tejjxtest o£ plaintiff to Dec. 4. j 32, Tbhiier v. William Stephenson — claim £85. Mr Eay apueared for ilefenda t. Adjourned on application of plaintiff to 4th December on p'aintiff paying defendant 10s, and 10s to witness Armstrong. Bradcock & (iay v. Jaints Me Oifford— riaim £1 Henry Bradcock being sworn said lam one of the plaintiff's in this -case. The defendant owea £1 for horse hireii." ; , ' ; JTfidgni^for jjl intiff by default lO.r £1 aD*l costs 6s

„ J?ranfc James iv EparaimaMahauariki and others — claim £6 16s Bd. Oi». application of defendant* solicitor the case was adjourned to Dec. 4, on payment ot 10s to plaintiff. Mis William Reid v. James Me Giflord— claim £S 14b. William Reid appearing stated .that Mrs Beid had thought that the court did not sit till twelve o'clock. The case was put to the bottom of 4heli?t. Mrs Eeid being sworn said she was plaintiff in| this case — and sue I McGifford for board and lodging a d cash lent. Judgment for amount and costs 6s. 7. Smith v. J. Baundera~ claim £3 6a. The E. M. read his judgment which was as follows : — . Claim £8 Gs damages for the all leged wrongful removal of a post set j . irp by plaintiff m the boundary btttween the land occupied vespeetivey % p aintiff and defendant. It appeared from the evidence that the defendant feinoved the poet to as serfc a right of way and the defence was. Ist— That the defendant has T * of way -acquired by user over tneland eocUpied by the plaintiff and 2nd tli t the court has no jam? diction to try the case as th© title to hereditaments ism dispute. MrMellish quoted a case Firman t. Lowe which however I have been una ( le to find in the digests that I have referred to. Mr Baker argued that if the court waa satisfied as a ;fcac,fc that no such user of the road had existed as could give a right to fc the defendant then there was no question of title to oust the juris"afcitffa.''.-' !i !> .... . After consulting authorities I can* not agee with Mr Baker's contention. Sec. 19 of theß M. Aot 67 provides that the court shall not take cognizance ot (any claim or dem 'nd in which th • title to land or other hereditaments is in dispute. In an * Eng ish case Adey and another v. the Deputy Master of Trinity Bouse, 22, L.J.Q.B. 8. it was decided v that the title to an incorporated ; hereditament is in question when either its existence or the right to it is disputed. Coleridge J. said " The word title ban differ nt meanings (Jay) in one sense it may import whether the party has 'he right to tho thing which is admitted to exist or it may mean whether the thing claimed does in fact exist." In Fisher v. Ellesmere Boad Board 1 (N.Z.) J.E. 109 it was decided that the title to an easement being in & apute tiio jiudtdictioc. of •RJlie poni't; was ousted. la Broad's S.M. ('ouri Giudep. 7 the author says " But every assertion of right or title will not shut ou the jurisdiction of the court. There must be a bona fide claim, however weak the evidence in support of it. It seems that as soon as an alleged wr ng doer justifies under some right to oc cupy it becomes a question of title however slight the title may be Proudfoot and Banbury mac. 1060. In Beg. v. Carew in re Smith's 2N. Z. L.E.S.C. 116. It was decided that a olaim of right to discharge drainage water into and to have it carried away by an artificial .ditch on the defendant's land is a claim to an easement and ousts the ' jurisdiction of the B. M. Court. Williams J. said as the determination of whether the plaintiff was entitled to a right of this nature is beyond the jurisdiction of the K. M. Court prohibition must be granted. In Boss v. Mackay LE. 8 5.0.60 it was decided that a claim of right ± to. discharge water »pon the land of another raises a question of title and gusto the^ jurisdiction of the X.M Court At the hearing of the case I .was aot satisfied as a fact that a right of *ey oyer the plaintiffs land existed either by user or in any other way. The evidence of the user of the road was conflicting bot it appeared from the evidence that a right of way along the Manftwatu- river had been from to tiipe assorted by the defendant an^ others. That being •o^l think from the cases. I have life cted that I must decline jurisdiction. •> I*decidt>that the- Court has no juris diction and strike out .the case. " ••j'i'T 'CfentiKAx Casks'. •' • \'^6* Purr >: John Burr-In this '■ case th«rt wa»- no *ppt*x*na* 'K. *ir*;L . ' m.»v - ' .■' ■w ■ :

either party, and the case was di missed without prejudice. GK A Tapp v. Thomas Leo— Th constable stated that the daughte was ordered to the Industrial schoc and defendant charged with Ss week He now owed £5 12s and re fused to pay. Mrs Lee appeared and said sh wa« the wife o£ 'I udrhas Lee, au< her hu barttl would pay £l tomorrow and £1 a month till the arr ars wer< paid up. The E.M. said he wou < allow this proposal to be carried out and informed the constable that v. this was not carr ed out lie conic apply for a distress warrant. Abson. Wiremu Ma'enga v. Mik>. Peka Tatana— Mr Bay appeared to prosecute. Th» defendant applied for an adjournment as her solioitor w»s not present. The case was remanded td next Wednesday.