HAMILTON.—Nov. 23.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume VI, Issue 352, 3 December 1875, Page 3

HAMILTON.—Nov. 23.

Resident Magistbate's Cocbt. (Before H. W. Robinson, Esq., EM.). Police v. Barber.—For having an unregistered dog. Case withdrawn, lees haying been paid.

Resident Maoistbate's Coubt. (Before H. W. Robinson, Esq., R.M.)

Connolly v. Gill.—Claim of £7 9s. 6d., for damages to fence, and for contributions towards half of a dividing fence. Mr. Rowlatt for plaintiff". Plaintiff in this case had purchased some sections in the township of Hyde—these sections being part of a paddock to which defendant had claimed to be entitled, but which was largely in excess of the acre that he could hold as a residence area. The plaintiff claimed from him half the cost of a portion of the fence which abutted upon the land that he admitted defendant to bo in possession of. As a matter of convenience to save fencing, plaintiff had not fenced round his sections but extended his fence in such a manner as to take up a portion of the paddock beyond what he had bought as a freehold, thereby dividing the paddock between himself and defendant. Defendant had thrown down the dividing fence, and plaintiff replacing it defendant had again thrown it down, and cut or broken some'of the timbers. Mr. Rowlatt, for Elaintiff, said that if defendant would pay alf the cost of the fencing his client would abandon his present claim for damages, and also refrain from interfering with any land outside the sections he had bought and paid for. The Court 3eeing tho opportunity of a compromise, adjourned the case to a later hour in tho day, when the defendant consented to pay . half the cost of fencing upon the items proposed. Judgment was therefore given ' for £5 being half of the cost of the por- I tion of the boundary fence already erected, with 415., costs, and 21s. professional expenses, ys Price v. Lilewall.—This was an thaffon' ttgSifisfr a servant in husbandrytor unlawfully absenting himself from his employment. Mr. Rowlatt, for informant, said that Mr. Price was ill, and was unable to attend, and asked that the case be postponed as he could not proceed with it tho evidence of the informant being es*ential. Defendant said he had come eight miles in obedience to the summons, and it would be a hardship for him to have to attend again. The Court would not allow an adjournment, except j upon terms that defendant should be paid aft his expenses. This Mr. Rowlatt was ' mt authorised to consent to. The case A/as therefore dismissed, defendant waiving any claim for expenses of the day. . i