RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 992, 29 October 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, GISBORNE.

Friday, October 28th, 1881. [Before Messrs. Dabg aville & Tucker, J. P.’s J J. Matthews was charged at the instance of the police with a breach of the Dog Nuisance Aet, in allowing his dog to attack one Edwin Lewis in the street. Mr. Brassey appeared for the accused and pleaded guilty, and offered, on behalf of his client, to grant any reparation in his power; he also urged a light penalty. Sergeant Bullen said he had brought the action on behalf of the public, as there were several dogs about, which were in the habit of attacking persons in the street. The Bench decided to hear the case. From the evidence of the complainant it appeared that he was in the street on the occasion in question, when the dog flew at him and bit a piece out of his groin, since which he had been under the doctor’s hands. Neither he nor the lad with him did anything to annoy the dog. He remembered that the dog had been reported to have bitten others, but he did not know of it himself. Arthur Martin gave similar testimony. He saw the dog bite the complainant without provocation. He did not touch the dog, or throw anything at it. The Bench considered that as civil proceedings were being taken against the accused for damages, a flue of ss. and costs would meet the case. 8. Boe v. W. Harvey. Breach of Slaughter House Act, 1877. Mr. Brassey applied fdr an adjournment of the case. Mr. Nolan objected on the ground that the summons had been issued for some days, but would assent to it if costs' were allowed. The Bench awarded costs, and granted the adjournment to Tuesday, Nov. 1. [Before His Honor Judos Kbeny—in the absence of Mr. Price, R.M.] Ratcliffe and Piesse v. H. A. Downe. Claim £1 Is. Judgment for plaintiffs, with costs. Ratcliffe and Piesse v. Paora Parau. Claim £1 2s. 6d. Jud ment for plaintiffs, with costs. Milford Taylor v.~W. L. Rees. Claim £3l, for . school tuition. Judgment confessed. W. Adair v. Tamaiti; Claim £9 19s. Judgment for plaintiff for amount, with costs, . fc . B/Knox v. D. Fraser. Claim £lO 18s. ll|d., for fencing moiety. Mr. Brassey for plaintiff. Mr. Finn for defendant. Plaintiff, sworn, said he was occupying the property for which the cost of, fencing was claimed. He held it from Anaru Ratapu and others, under lease, and is still in occupation. He had given Fraser notice to contribute to-, wards-the erection of a 7-wire fence. Witness described the nature of the fence, and continued: The fence is a substantial and well-built one. Defendant has not claimed the ground I am on since I have been in possession. He claims the property on both sides of the fence, so he told me, and said he would not have anything to do with the fertce. I have paid £2l 17s. lid. for the erection of the fence. By Mr. Finn : I have no receipt for the cost of the fence. My lease is for five years. On my oath I swear I have a lease; it is stamped. The lease has

not been signed since last Friday. I have been in occupation "about three months. I advertised the erection of the fence about a month after I took . possession. I occupied the land at the time I fenced it. Defendant’s sheep were also depasturing there. >- Robert Hamilton deposed to being present at a conversation between the plaintiff and defendant as to the erection of the fence. Fraser said it was npt convenient for him to put up the fence, as he occupied, the land adjoining Knox’s. He claimed no title to the land Knox occupied. Mr. Finn objected that the question of title arose, and argued in the direction of the plaintiff having no locus standi for making the claim. His Worship, nowever, .thought a prima facie case was before the Court. Duncan Fraser, sworn, deposed: One of the Maoris gave me permission to occupy the land in question. Plaintiff has told me he has no right to the land. There are others who occupy this land as well. In fact it is common property. To His Worship: The land has passed through the Native Land Court. By Mr. Brassey: Defendant gave me notice of the. erection of the fence, and I told him I would not sanction it, as-1 had an interest in the land. I have paid rent for the land before the erection of the fence. Defendant had an interest in the land before the erection of the fence.

On the question of jurisdiction Mr. Brassey contended that from the evidence before the Court there was nothing to show defendant’s superior title to the land, and

Mr. Finn having quoted authorities on the Subject, His Worship said that a mere assertion of a question of title was, insufficient, one must have a bona fide estate in the land. The plaintiff rested his claim on the law of occupancy. In this case both the plaintiff and defendant occupied the land in question, and it was difficult to decide on. this case without deciding on the question of title. Under those circumstances, he thought the question of title was raised, and must, therefore, give judgment for defendant without costs. A. M. Newman v. Woodhead Brothers. Claim £lO, for illegal removal of a fence. Mr. Rees for plaintiff, Mr. Nolan for the defence. The hearing of the case disclosed no points of interest. It was a dispute between neighbours as to the ownership of, and right to move a certain fence on the Ngakaroa Block, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, £7 10s.