HYDE.—Sept. 25.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume III, Issue 187, 4 October 1872, Page 3

HYDE.—Sept. 25.

Resident Ma/hstbates's Coubt. (Before H. W. Eobinson, Esq., R.M.)

Wm. Crowley v. Wm. Price.—Debt, £4 17s. 4d. Mr. Eowlatt for defendant. This was a claim partly for wages, and partly for the grubbing of twelve acres of land at Bs. an acre. The amount of claim was £9 145., but credit was given for a contra account of £4 17s. Bd., leaving a balance of £4 17s. 4d. now sued for. The defendant denied liability, and put in a further contra account of £1 for firewood for cooking purposes, alleged to have been consumed by plaintiff while in his service. It appeared that the defendant had Measured the land, and made it come to. nine acres, instead of twelve, but it was fully established by evidence that twelve acres had been grubbed by plaintiff. The Court gave verdict for the amount claimed (£4 17s. 4d'.), with costs 145.; and £3 expenses. An application for a slaughtering license by P. A. Connolly, was granted. Wakd-en's Court. (Before H. W. liobinson, Esq., Warden). M. S. Duffy and others v. Wm. Ander-

son-—Damages, £lO.. :Xv ofi ;either party. Struck out. M'Auley and others M. S. Duffy This was a complaint that the defendant did, on the 28th day of. July, .cause, a quantity of earth, &c„ to be .deposited on. plaintiffs' claim, for which £s4"damages were claimed. The case ; was hear4:b'.6fpre\ assessors, being a re-hearing of a case which had been decided by the" Warden,i and assessors' on the 21st August. Mr. Rowlatt for plaintiffs. The. evidence, which was very lengthy, went to show that the complainants had suffered damage by the falling in of a £reat body of earth on to their claim. The 'defendant was the owner of .a race which .passed along the hill-side above the claim, and it was contended that the fall had been in fact caused by the leakage from.his race. The defendant, on his part, contended that the mischief was caused by the plaintiffs taking away the support of the ground. . The Court found that the defendant was I not liable, ■ and the complaint was dis- ! missed with 2s. costs, and 445. expenses. 1 M. S. Duffy v. Maim and others.— ! 1 Claim for £llO damages, for injury to plaintiff's race through the negligent, working of the defendants. This case was in reality a cross being identical with the party called M'Auley and Company in the preceding case, and generally known as the- Homeward Bound Company. Mr." Eowlatt for defendants. This case also was heard before assessors, but not the same as had tried the other case. After the case for the complaint had been closed, Mr. Eowlatt submitted that there was no case for ' him to answer, and the Court found that the plaintiff had failed to make out a claim for damages. Complaint dismissed, with costs 25., expenses £3, and professional I costs £3 3s. - | Residence Area.—Jane .Redmond applied for a residence area on the east side of Main (xully. This was objected to by W. Price, upon several grounds- the printcipal being that' 'site'' had taken up the. ground within his .paddock.- •--< It appeared •that Price was fencing in a paddock which I would include the piece .of ground applied ' for : by Mrs.Eeamond, but' the Warden:' did not see. any valid reason for refusing ;her application. The application was accordingly granted. It being now past three o'clock in the morning, the Warden postponed the consideration of all other applications till next Court.