RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1020, 7 January 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, GISBORNE.

Fbiday, 6th Januabt. [Before Captain Preece, R.M., and Mr Paora Parau, Native Assessor.] J. Babnabd t. Wi Habakeke. This was an information against the accused for wilful obstruction of the Government Surveys at Waihau. Mr Brassey for the prosecution, Mr Rees for the defence. From the evidence of Jas. Orme Barnard, District Inspector of Surveys, it appeared that he had a staff of surveyors engaged on the survey of the Waihau Block. Mr Ellison was in charge. Henry Ellison deposed to the obstruction as follow : I know the block in question. I was acting under Mr Barnard’s instructions in September last, to survey the land. Defendant told me he should obstruct me. On the sth September defendant seized hold of my chain, and forcibly dragged it away. I made no subsequent attempt to go on with the survey. The boundary on which the obstruction took place is defined in the proclamation. By Mr Rees: I was working about a chain inside the boundary of the block at the time of the obstruction. Defendant told me it was not the true boundary of the block that I was surveying. A. D. Newton, articled clerk to Mr Ellison, corroborated the foregoing testimony, he being engaged on the survey at the time the chain was taken away. Mr Rees at this stage argued that there was no power in the Bench to inflictaflne, as the statute under which the information was laid provided only for the protection of the rights of third parties, and not for those of the Government ; these were provided for under other Acts. Mr Brassey quoted the preamble of the Act, and, after argument, His Worship held that an obstruction had been made, and fined the defendant in the sum of £5 and costs, £l2 4s. Counsel’s fee of £1 Is. to be allowed, provided Mr Price permits the existing practice of disallowance to be altered for the future. H. Rubu v. P. Bond, and others. Unlawful rescue of sheep. Mr W. Brassey for the plaintiff, Messrs. Rees and Robinson for defendant. This case was entered up for rehearing, before the R.M. on the ground of disatisfaction of defendant, who demurred to the decision of the Justices —Messrs Graham and Fisher—some time since. On the previous hearing Mr Bond was fined £5 and costs, and now sought a reversal of judgment. The particulars of the case will be fresh in the public mind ; and no new interest can be given to it by an extended report of the new investigation. His Worship was of opinion that an illegal rescue had been established by the defendent; and would further

state that if Mr Bond had suffered an injury at Mr Clarke’s hand (Mr Clarke also • occupying the disputed land) his course was a civil action. He should therefore, fine Mr Bond in the sum of £5 and costs, £4 Is. Payment to be made in one week. Mr Rees made an unsuccessful application to the Bench that the fine be increased, in order that his client may appeal on the general case to the next sittings of the District Court. Mr Brassey opposed, and the fine stands as recorded. McDowell v. Bobough Council. This was a claim of £BO, instituted by the plaintiff, against the Gisborne Borough Council for certain work per formed by him, as extras, outside some half dozen contracts undertaken by him from the Borough during the last year. Mr Rees appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Brassey for the defendants. The case occupied the Court about 5 hours, during which the plaintiff and several witness were examined ; the evidence given by them all, more or less showing a great laxity of a> tion on both sides. The plaintiff set up his claim on account of the scant information supplied to tenderers by the Borough Engineer; while the Engineer averred that he gave tenderers every assistance, as to certain calculations, but did not furnish them with a plan or sectional drawings with gradients. So far as the case had proceeded up to six o’clock last night, disclosures were made, on both sides, which make it patent that the contracts given by our local bodies must be based on some more defined business lines than at present. The case was adjourned to 9.30 a.m, this morning.