BESIDE NT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 1696, 31 January 1873, Page 2

BESIDE NT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before H. M'Culloch, Esq., R.M.). Tuesday, 28th Jakcaby. Coupland v. M" Menamin. — His Worship gara judgment in this case, heard the previous Tuesday, as follows : — " It appears that plaintiff made a verbal agreement, as to the compensation for the portion of his land taken, w th the person appointed by the G-overnor for that purpose. Th« defendants are persons to whom the G-orarn-ment has conceded the right to make the railway, and they entered upon possession apparently with plaintiff's consent. In doing so they necessarily, for the purpose of proceeding with the work, broke down certain fences, in consequence of which cattle got in and destroyed plaint'ff'i crops. As to compensation, under the Immigration and Public Works Act, 1870, aection 71, it is provided that — All persons being owners of, or having any lesser estate or interest in anj lands taken, occupied, or used under the authority of this part of this Act, or which may be damaged by the construction of any such railway, shall ba entitled to receive compensation for such land, occupation, use, or damage, the amount whereof shall be ascertained in the manner set forth in the Lands Clauses Consolidation Aot, 1863, which, and al) Acts amending the same, are hereby incorporated in this part of this Act. The Act «f 1871, however, declares that certain clauses of tha Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1863, referring to the settlement oi compensation, shall no* apply to railways constructed under these Acts, and provides instead that compensation shall ba settled by tha District Court Judge, sitting with assessors, or the Resident Magistrate, with assessors. I therefore think that the defendant! are improperly sued in this action. Plaintiff if accordingly nonsuited, with costs.'' The costs amounted to £4 19s. M'Clure v. Modgers.— Claim for £13 6», for medical attendance. Mr Harvey for plaintiff. Defendant admitted the liability, with the exception of £5 for visits which he considered war* included in the sum of £4 4s charged for a confinement, the visits having been paid within the customary period of nine days during which medical attendance in such cases is expected. Plaintiff stated that some of the visits were special visits made at Mr Rodgers's request, and that several of them were on account of another patient in the house, a siok child. His Worship said that there had been nothing to show that the charges were unreasonable, and that it was no part of the duty of the court to fix a tariff for medical attendance. Judgment for , plaintiff, with costs, £2 10s 6d.

Lindsay v. M' Arthur. — Claim for£ls, price of » mare sold to defendant. The defence was that the mare having been guaranteed sound, and taming out to be unround, the contract was null and void. Mr Macdonald appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Wade for defendant. ' The eale of the mare having been proved, His Worship gave judgment' for plaintiff, with costs, £t 7s, remarking that in such onset the test course for the purchaser was to sell the animal •t»uotion, a«d then either bring an action against the seller for damages for breach of warranty, or if the money had not been paid, await an action from the seller for the prioe, and use the breach of warranty in reduction of the amount. Mair and Garten c. Wenlworth—Clmim for £7 10s, goods sold and delivered. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for plaintiffs, with costs. Mair and Garten v. Saggott. — Claim for £8 8s Id, goods sold and delivered. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for plaintiffs, with costs. Evans v. Highett:—Thi» was an action to recover £5 10s, for services of an entire horse Mr Wade for plaintiff, Mr Harvey for defendant. Defendant did aot appear when called on to five evidence. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs, £1 14s.