HESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume II, Issue 1, 2 January 1867, Page 3

HESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

[Before J. Poynter, Esq., R.M.] This Dat. E. Levien v. Gilson. —Claim, £1 14s. for hay. The defendant produced a receipt for the money. Judgment was giveu for de» defendant with costs. Pope v. Cator. —Claim £2. Judgment by consent. A week allowed for paymeut. Trask and Cook v. Lockett. — Claim, £19 16s. Judgment by consent; time allowed, half in six week's, and half in six weeks following. Scarlett v. Wilkins.—Claim, £4 lfls. Judgment by consent, to be paid in weekly instalments of ss. Lockyer v. Abbott. —Claim, 10s. 4d. Judgment for plaintiff; who said when he asked for the money, defendant set a dog, a most dangerous animal, after him (laughter). Moore v. Hibble.—Claim, £1 18s. Defendant paid 3s. Od. into court, which he admitted. Plaintiff said he sold three concertinas, at lls. 6d. each, to defendant, April 9 1864 To the defendant: People have produced receipts to me or my trustees for accounts, which have been found to have been paid, I swear I have never received the money. Edwin Smallbone: I remember Mr. Walcott bringing an account to you at the Examiner Office, and I lent you £2 to pay it with. Mr. Walcott was" in plaintiff's service at the time, and the demand was for three concertinas. Defendant stated he had a distinct recollection of having paid the money; but he had unfortunately mislaid all his documents. He then said on oath, that Mr. "Walcott applied to him for an account about three years since, for Mr. Moore, he asked Mr. S-nallbone, as was his custom, to pay the money for him. He did and paid the money to Mr. Walcott, in the shop. He had bought things subsequently of Mr. Moore, at auction, and never heard of this account till his return from Wellington, about seven months ago. To the plaintiff: I can prove I bought things subsequently to this purchase. Plaintiff: I can prove the contrary, by my auction books. / His Worship said it was a common case for a man to have to pay an account twice over, if he had not taken a receipt. - The rule of law must be followed in this instance, and judgment given for plaintiff. Eawlings v. Rev. W. Bird and others. — Mr. Kiugdon for plaintiff, Mr. Pitt for defendants. Claim, £3, value of posts and rails removed from plaintiff's ground. Plaintiff: I am in possession and am owner of Section 11, in Waimea South. I have a crown grant of the same. I split a number of po.«ts and rails on the ground, I think about 300. I found them removed. My land is fenced all round. It is about 40 acres. To Mr. Pitt: I have known Mr. Bird six years or longer, 1 never asked him to lend me money. He offered to lend me from £50 to £100. In 1858, he lent me £50, which I have not repaid. It was not agreed Mr. Bird should have the option of repayment either in money or land. I agreed to his having some land if he chose to have it at the time I fenced my land, and Mr. Bird pointed out a piece of land he would take, if he bought any. This was before I fenced, shortly before. When about to fence, I did not request Mr. Bird to allow me to enclose his land within mine. He said his land might be left open with mine, and there was. no occasion to have a separate fence. I agreed to fence in his land with mine if he wished it. There was no agreement for him to purchase it. Mr. Bird paid one-half the cost of one of the lines of fence between me and Graukrodger. Mr. Bird said if he had" the land he would take that next \>o Grawkrodger's. This was on the left Hand

side of the road going to Wai-iti. I consented to Mr. Bird being assessed for this 10 acres of land for the road-rate. During 1865 I conversed with Mr. Bird about clearing the land. I objected, and he cleared without my concurrence. He managed to clear when I was not at home. He did not remove timber or I should have sued him. I did not think he damaged the trees. Mr. Bird told me he was going to build, and I asked him to get a conveyance. Messrs. Adams and Kingdon wrote one letter to me on this subject, which I did not answer. I have received a similar application from Mr. Pitt, which I did not answer. In November last, Mr, Pitt tendered a deed for my signature, which I would not sign or look at. I was told it was a receipt for the money, or something of the kind* I split the rails, but I cannot say who felled the trees. Mr. Pitt submitted it was clearly a question of disputed title to the land. To Mr. Kingdon : There was no agreement in writing. Mr. Bird positively and repeatedly refused to take the land after it was fenced. The deed was presented about two months ago, the rails were taken after Mr. Bird said he had failed in his speculation of an island, and would give up this land. He was going to England and preferred the money to the land. He wished to leave the money in my hands, and he asked me to keep it as he should want it for passage money, and knew where he could get it. This was about two years ago. Since this time there has been no renewed agreement that he should take the land. I have remained in possession ever since. I have never refused to pay him the money. After he told me to keep the money, he spoke about it some six months after. I have paid all the rates except the last year's. Mr, Bird paid the last year. I think I paid for 1865. Mr. Pitt again objected to the case going further, as Mr. Bird was clearly in a position to go to a Court of Equity, and ask for a specific performance of the verbal agreement entered into. He had expended money in rates, fencing; and purchase, according to plaintiff's own evidence. These were questions for the consideration of the Supreme Court, a conveyance having been tendered before the rails were taken. Mr. Kingdon contended that the money was offered as a loan without interest and not as a purchase, and that without a contract there was no case for the Supreme Court. The money was left as passage ' money, and Mr. Bird had admitted he had no claim to the land. It was expressly laid down in Addison that a written agreement was necessary before a case could be takeu to the Supreme Court. He could produce evidence to show that Mr. Bird had renounced all title to the land. His Worship said he would take it. Eobert Bouningtou : I was requested to assist in settling a dispute. Mr. Bird admitted to me that had tbe island suited him he should have wanted the post and rails. I think he was never in possession of this land ; and about five weeks ago he said he had once given up all idea of possessing the land but, he wanted it again. His Worship said he should nonsuit the plaintiff in the case. It was understood that nothing more should be taken from the land. M'Beth v. Campbell, claim £10, for damages sustained by trespass. Case referred to arbitration. Jas. Allen, Robert Weir, and Eichard Ball, were fined 20s. and costs, for drunkenness. The magistrate informed them if they were brought before him again, he should bind them over to keep tbe peace.