MAGISTERIAL.

Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 953, 1 November 1882, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

' PATEA, OCTOBER 31. Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.) CIVIC CASES. Tennent Od on a dishonored acceptance. Mr Barton for plaintiff. There was no appearance of defendant, and judgment was given for the plaintiff with costs, £5, Patea Harbour Board v. Rhodes.— Claim £ll, for rent of lease held by defendant, Mr Hamerton appeared for plaintiffs. —Rhodes • deposed : He attended the sale of the Barbour Board leases, and purchased section 11. Ho paid a half year’s rent and signed a document. A lease had not been tendered him for signature by MrT. Hamerton. Had not been released from the conditions of his agreement by the Board. The Board had demanded two half (years’ rents for section 4 but he had not paid it. He bought No. 4, not No. 11 but the latter number had been altered to the former. He tried to sell his section, and went with a party to find No. 11, but could not. That was about nine months ago. He had been in negotiation for the sale during the last fortnight, but had not completed the transaction, because *he could not find section 11, He did not know the conditions of the paper he signed, and was anxious to forfeit his deposit. He did not think a map of the sections was shown in the auction room, but would not swear that it was not.

At this stage defendant asked for an adjournment for a fortnight UHenable him to dispose of the land and free himself from the lease.

Mr Hamerton said that he did not object, and His Worship adjourned the case accordingly.

John Black v. C. F. Barker. —Claim, Jl‘39 8s 9d for advertising. Owing to plaintiff’s illness, this case was postponed sine die.

Wright v. Sykes. —Claim L 5 for loss and damages caused through defendant cutting a log which was lying in the river bed. Mr Barton for plaintiff ; Mr Hamcrton for defendant.

Mr Barton in opening the case said that the circumstances surrounding it were rather peculiar. Plaintiff was a boatman who worked on the river He resided on Poverty Flat, and was employed by the Harbour Board to remove stumps of trees from the river. He also removed stumps which he cut up for firewood on his own account. Some few years ago he removed a large stump and brought it to the shore and a branch stuck it in the sand, and gradually became imbedded. It was then used by him as a sort of cradle on which to clean the punt used by him in his work, so that he may be said to have become possessed of the log and used it for certain purposes in connection with his business. Plaintiff, although he might be a trespasser against the Harbour Board or the Crown, or whoever owned the river, was, against every other person except the owner, the absolute possessor of the log. In support of his argument counsel cited a case in which a boy picked up a valuable diamond, and took it to a jeweller to ascertain its value. The latter declined to give it up, and the boy brought an action against him, and recovered full damages, it being held that the finder had an indisputable title against every person except the owner. He (Mr Barton) would prove that plaintiff held the log for years, and that defendant came and cut it up with a saw. Sykes bad no right to have interfered with it, and he held that that was a healthy law or they would have no end of bickeringsHe called

Thomas Wright, who deposed that he was a boatman and owned a punt, which he used on the river for different purposes. He used the tree fur putting the punt on if she had a hole or wanted repairs. He put her on the log at high water, and when the tide went down it left her-high and dry, so that he could work at her. He could not estimate, the value of the log to him, but ho had put it down at £5, although it would cost him £2O to get appliances to raise the punt by other means, if required, for repairs.- It was two or three years since he first got the log. A little while back, defendants came out from the house and commenced chopping at the log. Witness, who was working close by, told him to desist. He wen 4 away, but returned with his father, who went to work on the log. Witness asked him to desist, and he replied that he would when it was all cut up. He cut part off, and the remainder was too small for him to put bis punt on.

By Mr Hamerton : He never gave the log to a person named Kennedy. He did not know if charges of dynamite had been put in the log, and would be much surprised to bear Kennedy’ to come forward to say that lie had said so. Witness had brought the log down the river himself, and there were no others suitable for his work. Had bad no conversation with a person named Middleton about the log in question, but had spoken to him about another one. He had authority from the Harbor Board to lift the logs.

By Mr Barton.: The log was soft outside ; it was lying at half tide. John Pendall corroborated the plaintiff’s evidence.

Joseph Sykes, the defendant, stated that he was a carpenter, and bad been on the river bank for the past twelve months. Had never seen plaintiff’s punt on the log during that time. He commenced to cut away the log so as to allow bis boat to come in with safety. Ho had cut two or three times at the log, but found it difficult to get much off. He detailed the circumstances under which he had cut the log, which substantially agreed with plaintiff’s evidence. He had been nearly capsized by coming against the tree, and was

anxious to prevent.a .'repetition of that. The piece he cut off would not in liis opinion, prevent plaintiff from using -it • for.his punt. Other evidence having been given, His Worship gave judgment against plaintiff, with costs £1 2s.