MAGISTERIAL.

Patea Mail, Volume IX, Issue 1080, 12 October 1883, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

PATEA—THIS DAY. (Before 0. A. Wray, Esq., R.M. CIVIL CASES. Eyton v McKenzie. This was a case which had been adjourned from a, former Court day, in order that the clerk might write to McKenzie. Judgment for, plaintiff for amount claimed, or in default of payment I week’s imprisonment. Taplin v Claridge. Judgment summons for 14s. The Clerk stated 9s had been paid into Court. Case to stand over for a week. Taplin v. P. Klink, Claim, £2 8s Id ; goods supplied. Judgment for plaintiff by default, with costs, 18s. Same v. Harper ; case adjourned til! Nov. 2. Same v. Kirk, Claim, 14b 8d ; goods supplied. Judgment for plaintiff by default, with costs, 7s. Hunter v. J. C. Irwin, Claim, £ll 6s 4d, for use of mnre and harness removed. Mr Hainerton for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiiff by default, for amount claimed, and costs.

Horner v. Laishlet, claim for rates due to Patea County Council. Defendant lid not appear, but he had written a letter o the Court making several objections. He stated tho particulars of demand were insufficient ; tint in tho notice demanding onyrnent, the section was set down as I—ll Mnngnpapa, and in tbe summons as 1-6. Besides this, Section 23 of the \cl had it that the demand must bo in writing, whereas in this case it was printed-; and in addition tbe collector was 'ding in his own name, when according to the 26 Section of the Act, he should sue in the name of the body he was acting for.

His Worship thought some of the objections held good, and nonsuited the plaintiff. Horner v. Craiq. Plaintiff nonsuited on same grounds as above.

Patea Harbour Board t Paterson, Claim £9 12s 4d, rent due. This was a case in which the Board sued the defendants for rent of land taken for railway purposes, but for which defendants contended they were not liable. Mr Hamerton appeared for plaintiffs r andißtated that the defendants had discovered ah error in their calculations, and had ,paid some money into Court, reducing the claim ?o £4 16s 2d. Mr Hamerton called Thomas Byton, who said he was clerk to Harbour Board. Had held the position since February, 1879. Patterson Brothers were the tenants of a section of the Board at Kakaramea. They had been in possession since 1877. He had certified copy of lease. By defendants; You pay 17s per acre for the land. Some 2a 3r, hare been taken for the railway. The rent on that would amount to £2.18s Id per annum. This was. the plaintiffs’ case. : John Paterson stated he, was a farmer, residing at Kakaramea, and one of: the tenants of the land in question. They received a proclamation about the intention of Government to enter on this land in 1881. Government subsequently ,did enter. They had made a'daim for compensation to Government for damage to the whole lease, but had.not been paid. They had made a claim for rent of the land taken, but Government held they were not liable. Government had issued a cheque for part of the claim, but Mr Long refused to countersign it till ho received instructions to do *o. His Worship had some-doubt as to whether he could deal with the case, as if it was a question of tille.it was beyond his jurisdiction. Mr Hamerton did not consider it was a question of title, and contended that the Harbour Board should receive judgment in their favour as if they lost the case, they.were shut off from receiving anything for land because they could not claim compensation, biit this the defendants could fljjj Judgment for plaintiffs for amount claimed. V.;