SUPREME COURT—CIVIL SITTINGS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5404, 23 July 1878, Page 3

SUPREME COURT—CIVIL SITTINGS.

Monday, July 22. (Before his Honor Mr. Justice Richmond aud a special jury.) LEACH V. JOHNSTON. In this case, Mrs. Mary Leach, of Polhill Gully, is plaintiff, and Dr. Alexander Johnston defendant. The action is one of trespass. Defendant admitted the trespass, and paid £ls 9s. into Court, so that the only question for the jury was what damages, if any, the plaintiff was entitled to recover; the amount claimed being £BOO, besides £SO rent from the Bth March, 1877, to Ist March, 1878. For the plaintiff Mr. Barton (with him Mr. Fitzherhert). For the defendant Mr. Gordon Allan (with him Mr. Brandon, jun.) Special jury—Messrs, D. T. Stuart (foreman), F. C. Binns, B. Burrett, E. H. Crease, E. A. Ellaby, 0. J. Johnston, J. Smith, S. W. Alcorn, C. E. Tayton, A, Warburton, B. Port, and W. H, Meek,

Mr. Fitzherhert opened the pleadings, after which Mr. Barton stated the plaintiff's case. The defendant and a Mr. Burns, then controller of a banking institution in this country; but since deceased, took a lease from the Maoris of a piece of land in Polhill Gully which had been in the possession of Mrs. Leach and her husband for a period of thirty years. The Maoris inserted an express clause in the second lease to tho defendant and Mr. Burns to the effect that it was subject to Mrs. Leach’s rights. The defendant proceeded to fence the laud and toshut out the plaintiff’s cattle from grazing on the land. The plaintiff in March, 1877, commenced an action against Dr, Johnston for trespass. Tho cose was tried on the 10th of October following, aud resulted in a verdict for tho plaintiff, with £177 damages. Defendant did not give up possession of the land to the plaintiff. He had previously let the ground to Mr. Sommerville, livery stable keeper, and had not served him with notice to quit, in order that the plaintiff might get possession of the laud. Hence the second action for trespass. Evidence having been given, counsel on both sides addressed tho Court. "

His Honor having summed up, the jury returned a verdict as follows:—1. Has the plaintiff sustained any and if so what damages beyond the sum of £ls 9s. through the alleged trespasses of the defendant from tho 3rd March, 1877, up to and inclusive of the Bth October,' 1877 ?—No ;.none. 2. Has the defendant trespassed on the land of the plaintiff, as in the declaration alleged, at any time between the said Bth October, 1877, and the. Ist March, 1878, the date of the commencement of this action?—By direction of the Judge, No. 3. What damages has plaintiff sustained by reason of the trespasses referred to in issue No. 2 ?—. None. • Practically this amounts to a verdict fer the defendant. Mr. Allan asked his Honor to certify for it special jury. His Honor declined to do so, considering that it was a case of the greatest simplicity, and ought to have been tried by a common jury. The Court adjourned till 10 a.m. on Thursday next. -