RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Patea Mail, Volume II, Issue 105, 12 April 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

SATURDAY, APRIL Bth. (Before Major Turner, R.M.; 11. F. Christie, J. S. Livingstone, H. S. Peacock, and J. W. Kennali, Esqs., J.P’s.) TRESPASS AT WHENUAKURA, The case against Ngahina and others? for trespassing on land at Whenuakura, the property of Mr Nicholson, was proceeded with, but proceedings were cut short by defendants at once admitting the charge. Ngahina, in defence, said that they had gone on the ground in order to get the balance that was due to them, in payment for the land. This Nicholson had paid in March last, but the money had not reached them. With respect to lighting tires, the women and not the men had done that. The Bench retired to consider the case, and on returning after some little time, the Chairman said that the delay had been occasioned through the Bench having to consider whether, as defendants had pleaded guilty, they could be released with a caution only. They had found this was impossible, but the circumstances of their case wore very different, and defendants would therefore be liberated on their own recognisances, to appear to answer tho charge at the Supremo Court, Wanganui, on the 24th inst. With reference to the defence, the defendants ought to have known that they could prefer any claim that they might have in the Native Lands Court, where they would bo justly dealt with, but they wore not to be allowed to take the law into their own hands as they thought fit. The rocogniznces were duly entered into and the proceedings so far terminated. CIVIL CASK. Taplin v. Gibson.—Tho Bench briefly gave judgment in this case m favor of the plaintiff, with the usual costs. Mr Fitzhcrbert, who appeared for Mr Gibson, asked the Chairman if lie would state the grounds on which the Bench based their decision. The Chairman said that there were three—that, at the time, the wharf was not duly recognised, that it had not been shown Mr Gibson was justified in taking possession of the goods, and that in the opinion of the Bench, Mr Taplin had made a demand for thorn prior to their being stored. The Court then adjourned.