SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5165, 11 October 1877, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS.

Wednesday, October 10. (Before his Honor Mr. Justice Richmond and a common jury.) The case of Leach v. Johnston was continued. Mr. Nicholas Marchant stated that be knew the land in question. In making the surveys for the waterworks he found that the plaintiff's cowshed wss on a public street. He did not interfere with the cowshed then, as the thoroughfare was not much used ; but he had a fence removed some distance back to allow of the water mains being laid. Dr. Johnston instructed witness to call for tenders for a fence round the portion he (the defendant) claimed claimed. Witness accepted tenders, and told Mr. Davis, the party who contracted to put up the fence, not to interfere with any of Mrs. Leach’s buildings. He was positive that he gave no instructions to Davis to run the fence through the cowshed. Witness had some cows running on the land before the fence was erectetf. He had never asked Mrs. Leach’s permission to allow the cattle to graze upon the land, and had never paid her any money, because he was not sure who was the rightful occupier. The native reserves in Polhdl Gully amounted to about eighty-six acres, some thirty acres more than the plaintiff claimed to occupy. There were about fifty acres on the south side of the road. The plan of the land on the lease granted to Mrs. Leach was then handed to witness, and he stated that, judging from that plan, plaintiff’s lease embraced land of equal proportions on both sides of the road, although on the south side there was to his knowledge a considerable amount of native land not included in the lease. Several other plana were handed to the witness, who said they all agreed in the main particulars. The native reserves on the south side would be about equal in acreage to that mentioned in Mrs. Leach’s lease. It was the north side which Dr. Johnston had fenced off. This closed the defendant’s case. Counsel having addressed the jury, his Honor summed up, directing the jury as to the main issues, namely, as to whether the plaintiff was in lawful occupation of the land at the time of the alleged trespass, and what damage she sustained through such trespass on the part of the defendant. The jury retired, and after an absence of half an hour returned into Court with a verdict for the plaintiff on the material issues, and assessed the damages at £177.