RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Volume III, Issue 240, 11 April 1866, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before H. M'Culloch, Esq., R.M.) MONDAY 9th APRIL. Two inebriates, who had been in the lock-up since Saturday night, were discharged. CrviL Cases. , CALDEIt V. WEBSTER AND BEOAD. This was a claim for £5 damages, for the destruction of a fence which plaintiff had erected across a street at Gladstone. Mr Macdonald appeared for plaintiff, Mr Harvey for defendant. It appeared from the evidence in the case, that the title to the piece of ground across which the fence had been erected, was in dispute, and consequently the Resident Magistrate - determined not to adjudicate ; the Resident Magistrate's Court Act, 1856, ' enacting that sneh cases shonld not be, decided by a Resident Magistrate. FLINT Y. SMITH. Claim for £10 damages, for cutting down and removing a sign-board the alleged property of plaintiff. Mr Macdonald for plaintiff, Mr Harvey for defendant. The plaintiff deposed that in October last he bought the good-will of the Southland Club Stables from defendant, together with thesign-boardin question, a horse, harness, and various other articles, for £60. The defendant's name was painted on the the board, and defendant had asked witness to paint it out, but through not being able to find a competent person to paint a sign, such as he desired, in place of it, plaintiff had not done so. On the 2nd April two carpenters went and cut down the sign by defendant's order, whereby plaintiff had sustained damage to the- amount claimed, In cross-exami-nation plaintiff stated that the sign-board was erected at the entrance of a right-of-way between the Southland Club Hotel and the premises of Mr Johnson, Confectioner. That at the time of the payment ol the £60 a receipt was prepared by defendant who said that it was not necessary to mention in it anything more than the good-will of the lease. "Witness distinctly denied there was any arrangement that he was to have the sign-board on the condition that he painted out defendant's name. Defendant had asked witness to paint out his name. Had never prevented a person named Pope, from painting out Smith's name. Thomas Brownlie, a carpenter, deposed to having removed the sign-board, by order of defendam. George Smith, the defendant, deposed that he sold plaintiff the good- will of the lease of the stables for £60 and that at the time there was nothing said about the sign-board, but afterwards he agreed to let plaintiff have the sign-board if he would paint out his (Smith's) name. Had repeatedly asked plaintiff to paint out the i»ame, which had not been done, aud on witness sending a man to paint it out, plaintiff prevented him from doing bo, . Notice was tta given to plaintiff

that unless the name was removed, the sign-board would be pulled down, and this, was accordingly done. J. H. Pope deposed that he went, at request of defendant, to paint out defendant's name, and was prevented by plaintiff. - . The Resident Magistrate decided that the sign-board did not pass at the time of the sale of the good-will in the lease. A sign with defendant's name on it could not be taken to be any benefit to plaintiffs business. The, plaintiff had refused to paint out defendant's name on being asked to do so, and therefore defendant was justified in removing the board. Judgment for defendant, with costs. O'SHAEGN-ASSY T. m'PHEBSON. Claim for £25 on a dishonored cheque. Judgment for plaintiff for £18 10s and costs £5.\ PEEDBIC T. STOEiET. Claim for £5 10s for work done. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs 11s. . HOTTER V. COSTBIE. , Adjourned to 16th April. TUESDAY, 10th APRIL. Peter Ward was fined 20s, or 48 hours' imprisonment, for drunkenness.