RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7. (Before Dr. Croft, H. F. Christie, and J, W. Kenah, Esqs., J.P’s.) < There were no police eases for hearing. Civil Cases. G. W. Williams v. H. I. Davis A claim for £l2 13s, poundage and expenses claimed on some sheep released by defendant as poundkeoper, and which plaintiff bold him responsible for. Mr Fitzherburt, who appeared for the plaintiff, stated that the amount claimed had been paid into Court, with the exception of 8s special damage, which lie abandoned. lie bad elected to take the amount out and the case was therefore at an end. Major Turner then took his scat on the Bench. In Odgors v. Weiss, a judgment claim, there was no appearance of either party. Williams v. Forster, was a claim for £4 16s, and a verdict by default was given for that sum, • P. Bourke v. W. Gower :—This was an action to recover £B, for damage alleged to have boon committed by a buP, the property of defendant. Mr Fitzhorbcrt appeared for the plaintiff, Mr Adams for the defendant. The case occupied a long time, but the facts wore as follows. On the 13th of August last, the offending animal complained of, got out of bis own pasture and trespassed on that of plaintiff. When there it injured a young heifer and bad a combat with a hull, the property of plaintiff. On account of injuries, alleged to have been sustained during the fight by the latter, the sum of £5 was claimed, whilst on account of the heifer, a demand of £3 was made. Mr Adams moved for a nonsuit on the ground that proper particulars had not been furnished, showing how the £8 was mado up, and further that as the £5 claimed under the 13th section of the Act would, if recovered, revert to the Government it would not be for the use of the plaintiff. Mr Fitzhorbert replied and quoted ah exactly similar case, Hawkcn v. Quinlivan, that bad been tried a year ago in which the District Judge ruled that special damages could be recovered in any co’ftrt of ordinary jurisdiction, and that details wore unnecessary to furnish.
The Bench refused the nonsuit and tho case proceeded. Tho general facts were not denied, but it was urged for the delehce that the fencing of plaintiff’s land was hot secure within the meaning of the Act, ah'd that the injury to the heifer might have been done by plaintiff’s own bull, that fan in the enclosure. It was further shown that the injury done to the bull was trifling,, and that in fact plaintiff’s animal came off Victorious in the set-to, and chased his adversary off the ground. The Bench, after a patient hearing, awarded plaintiff the sum of £1 and costs. McGuire v. Scowen.—-An action to recover £8 15s, money paid for. defendant’s use. It seemed that plaintiff had let to defendant an hotel at’lvetemarac, brie, of the conditions attached £o which-was that he (defendant) should pay the insurance Of the building. Plaintiff had paid the sum
above mentioned on this account, and hence the action. The Bench enquired whether it was not usual Tor landlords to pa} r insurances on buildings, butMrFitzhcrbert, who appeared for plaintiff, said that there was a special covenant in this lease to the effect that defendant should pay it. A telegram was handed in to the Bench from defendant asking for an adjournment, but giving no reason why it should be granted, and a verdict was given for the sum claimed, with £2 15s costs. Gahan v. Kennedy.—Mr Adams for the plaintiff. There were two actions between the parties, in one of which plaintiff sought to recover£s for the destruction or damage of a wliare, and £1 for injury done to a table. It seemed that some time ago defendant allowed plaintiff the use of a wharo near the river, standing'on Government land, in consideration of Mrs Gahan doing his washing. A short time ago she went to service and failed to perform the ablutionary part of the contract, on which plaintiff unroofed the wharc, knocked the chimney down and caused other destruction, the table disaster included. The defence was that these strong proceedings wore taken in order to get rid of an objectionable tenant, that the table was not destroyed, and that Gahan had no claim whatever to the place. Mr Hirst, on being called, said bethought that pulling down the place was a very good thing, for owing to the proceedings that had been carried on in it, he fully expected to find it some day on fire, and to have his warehouse burnt down with it.
The Sargent of Police was about to volunteer a statement in reference to the late occupants, but was stopped by the Bench, who remarked that ho was not called on to give evidence. Both cases were dismissed with costs, the Chairman remarking that tins place had been a moral pest, and that it and others like it ought to be swept away. The occupants were in possession of land, the property of the Government, without any permission whatever and, no claim would be recognised. Verdicts by default wore given in F. McCarthy v. Pollnor, £1 (is and A. C. Fookes v. Burcboll, £1 IGs, the costs in the former being 10s and in the latter 18s.
Forster v. Kope Kopc.—To recover ;C1 ss, value of a sheep ridden over and injured so seriously by defendant as to necessitate it being destroyed. The defendant it appeared was madly galloping up the road where plaintiff was driving a Hock of sheep. The hindmost animal was a specially fine one, and lagged considerably. Instead of pulling out of the way Kopc Kopc rode direct at this sheep, apparently as plaintiff said, with the intention of jumping over it, but the horse rolled over it instead, and the rider was brought to grief together with his steed. The facts were not denied, but the only question was one of value, and the Bench, after hearing evidence on this head gave a verdict for 15s. The costs, including interpreter’s fee of a guinea, amounted to £2 15s Bd, which with the 15s judgment, brought up the total cost to £3 10s Bd, a rather expensive result, but one that gave general satisfaction to the pakcha portion of the community who heard the ease. .The Court then adjourned.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PATM18760909.2.8
Bibliographic details
Patea Mail, Volume II, Issue 148, 9 September 1876, Page 2
Word Count
1,073RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Patea Mail, Volume II, Issue 148, 9 September 1876, Page 2
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.