MAGISTERIAL.

Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 989, 26 January 1883, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

PATEA—THIS DAY. (Before C. A, Wray, Esq., R. M.) , ; MUNICIPAL BY-LAWS. Henry Lundherg pleaded guilty to having on the 18th inst. allowed his horse to wander in Lincoln street, and S. Barraclough to 1 a similar in. Chester street. They were each fined ss. . Robert Erskine, charged with allowing a horse to wander at large in Chester street, did not appear, and as. tliei police complaincd.of his having used.irisulting lunguage-towards them he was fined 10s and costs. CIVIL CASES. - Rhodes v. Mace and Bassett.—ln this case His Worship gave judgment as follows 1 ; The plaintiff seeks to ‘recover the sum of £3 3s from the defendant “ for use and occupation ” of the plaintiff’s section near-the-Patea river. He alleges -that the land was covered with the defendant’s limner ; that he spoke (o the defendant on the 4th October about the trespass, and that the defendant* promised' to pay rent if the land should prove to ■ belong to tho plaintiff.- This is positively denied by Hie ; defendant, who swears positively that the only conversation took place on the 28th December, and that,in consequence thereof lie removed bis ; timber, which only occupied:a small corner of-the section, ok the following day. The evidence is not sufficient to prove any contract between .the parties, either *ez- - press or implied. In the"absence of conclusive proof of, a permissive use of the section, the mere fact of occupation; is -.insufficient in. the absence.' of any promise to pay.” It was’ argued- • thaf.a tenancy ,by sufferance .might be. held to exist, but tins, I think, is not so. .- 1 Such a tenancy presupposes an original lawful has determined the person continuing .in : possession-with-toT out the agreement or disagreement of the landlord.' ■■ -In this cnse The defendant, if anything, was a trespasser from the first. I hold- that the ‘’plaintiff' has -failed To', - prove his claim, and the decision must be for the defendant,,with costs. ... D. H. 'Williamson v.:,GeraldO’Reilly... « —Plaintiff, who is.in possession of section . 7-, block 8, Momahaki,' claimed £5, on account of a bull belonging to defendant trespassing on plaintiff’slarid in September last,’and depasturing among, hi’s pure; bred cows and £1 19s for costs, and impounding. Mr Barton appeared,., for-pluiptiff, and Mr Hamerton for defendant. ■ His Worship* reserved judgment in the base.-