Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

District Court.

YESTERDAY'S SITTING. (Before Judob Haedcastle.) CIVIL CASE. , A. and H. Rassell v. Thos. Nelson. —Claim, £25, for trespass, etc. Mr Hankins for plaintiffs, and Mr Perkins for defendant. A jury consisting of James JsWler, Henry Fitzsimmons, John Gardiner, and William Francis were empanelled. Wm, Frances was chosed foreman. This was an .action brought against Fhos. Nelson for trespass on rnral section No. 6, Stoney Creek, and for damage done by removing certaiu ornamental and fruit-trees from the garden on the said section belonging to Messrs Rassell Bros., and formerly occupied by Mr D. Templeton. Counsel tor the defence admitted the trespass, but maintained that it was by the authority of D. Templeton the trees were removed. The witnesses called for the plaintiffs were GvL. R*. Scott (who produoed a plan shewing the locus m quo), H. Russell, A. Russell, Thos. Nelson, I). Templeton, and H. Paul. The evidence was very conflicting and vague as regards the damage done to the property on account of the removal of the trees, as not one witness was certain about the~irtt«ih«f— talcea—oor-the value of them, The defendant himself admitted that he had sold about £5 worth and had a number left, but he had not counted nor classified them. There waß also directly opposite evidence given between th a defendant and Me A. Russell with respect to having the permission to remove the trees. Mr A. Russell's statement was, however, borne oat afterwards as the more correct one. In summingup, His Honor took great pains m explaining to the ja>*y the nature of treaspas m various aspects and that damage awarded need not be only for the actual loss sustained; bmt for having oommitted the treaspas m direct opposition to the owner's expressed wish or m defiance of his will although no actual damage is committed. After half an hour's retirement the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs for £18 and costs as follows :— Costs of court, £2, 12s ; expenses of witnesses. £1 19a ; Counsels tee, £3 3s ; making, a total of £25 14s. Mr Hankins m his address was again very dear and eloquent, and may be justly congratulated on the result of his pleadings during the sittings of the court.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MS18830829.2.13

Bibliographic details

Manawatu Standard, Volume 4, Issue 228, 29 August 1883, Page 2

Word Count
371

District Court. Manawatu Standard, Volume 4, Issue 228, 29 August 1883, Page 2

District Court. Manawatu Standard, Volume 4, Issue 228, 29 August 1883, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert