RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 68, 9 July 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, July 3. [Before W. K. Nesbitt, Esq., R.M.] Bousfield v. Wi Paraone. —This was a claim for £55 for professional services rendered in the survey of the Heruheru block, and was adjourned from last Thursday for the production of further evidence. O. L. W. Bousfield, sworn, stated that he was engaged to do the survey by defendant about a year ago. He agreed to give him a plan, but did not agree to mark out a plan on the original block. Defendant gave him an order on Mr. Kempthorn which was not paid. The order was given to me after the defendant had seen the plan.—Wi Paraone, in defence, stated that the plan given by plantiff is not according to the boundaries marked off. After I gave the order on Mr. Kempthorne I heard the survey was incorrect. I stopped payment of the order in consequence, and told plaintiff I had done so.—The Court considered that the defendant having given the order acknowledged his liability, and gave judgment for plaintiff accordingly. Read v. Paraone.—Debt £43 3s 6d.—Judgment for plaintiff with costs. Jennings v. Barker & M'Donald. —This was a claim for £2 17s, one half the cost of erecting a dividing fence between the properties of plaintiff or defendant. The defence was founded on insufficiency of notice, the terms of the Fencing Act not having been properly complied with, by merely advertizing the notice in a local newspaper. The Court, therefore, adjudged in favor of defendant, on the ground that it was the duty of plaintiff to advertize his intention to fence the property in a newspaper in the city of Auckland.