RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before H. Kenrick, Esq., R.M. Tuesday, March 4, 1884.

Te Aroha News, Volume I, Issue 40, 8 March 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S CO U R T. (Before H. Kenrick, Esq., R.M. Tuesday, March 4, 1884.

Adjouunkd Casks. — Wells and vSouttor v. Clias. Read, chum £.7 17s ld 7 amount of an 1.0. U. given for debts incurred to the late linn of T W. Cair anil Sons, of which plaiiuiffs wore purchasers. Judgment for full amount, and co-;ts V>U. Same v. Edmund Hoaly, claim £1 4 s Bs, balance duo on a P.N. given. Ju lament for fnll amount, and costs B*. Willi.un Wil>on v. W. Xioliolls and J.-is. Nicholls, claim £1-1 2s 11 I. Oa*e withdrawn ; settled out of Court. Judgment for Pii.viNrn'Ks. — Wells and Sontter v. Hardisty, claim for £27 10s, balance duo on an 1.0. U. given plaintiffs for <£29. Judgment on confession for amount claimed, and costs 255. Chas. S. Pyne v. James Mainyay, claim £8 7s Id for goods supplied. Judgment for full amount, and costs ] Is. John Farrell v. William Purdie, claim £] 9s, balance due lor good? supplied. Judgment for amount, ami costs 7s. Charles 11. Edwards v. Tlios. Stanley and party, claim £'2() as follows : .El 5 for damages for trespass committed, and £& for rim'iei dcstioyod or burnt. Plaintiff, on being mvoimi, stated that he w.is <i tanner, and owner oi tiie Aiiik'ipe Mo. 2 uloek oi land, Waitoa. Knew defendants. Ported a notice on my hind cautioning p ople from cutting timber or Iresp is* ing thereon. In tie lirst week in January found defe i hints on my hind. Asked tiiem if they unew they were trespassing. They said no, that they wne within a chum of the j river, and therefore Government had a j rightto it. Tin* is a mistake, as my land goes right down to the river bank. Defendants are coutractois cutting Government drains, &c. They cut down a lot of timber without permission for chimney, whare, enclosures, &c. Wuen remonstrated with, they replied insolently. Defendants had a right to go on the land to cut drains, but no right to remain on the land for any other purpose. Gave them leave to stay four weeks and also gave them one tree for tirewood. and told t'lem I should change them foi any they used ho\oud that. After tl*e\ hid got through the swamp ground asked them to shift the camp, to Which rerpv^t Stnnlev ua\e an insuliing reply Jackson, one of the paity, admittel in me that they had torn down the notice T ported up. They requested me to point out my boun laries, but it was too wet for \n> to do so. They cut steps in i\\(} bank of the ii\er, and walked alou;> j the bank to wash in it, which would I ha\e an injurious effect on the bank and tend to make it more liable to be washed away by Hood*. Defendants have been gim'ng five to seven horses on my place and erected a temporary fence to keep them in. James B. Tl annah, Overseer of Public Works, and examined, gave it as hi 5 ; opinion thot plaintiff could not have snffoivd much in any way by the defendants being on his land, beyond a simple trespass. Defendant, Thomas Stanley, on being sworn, stated : About the (Jib January starteil camping at the place mentioned. On the second day afterwards plain HIT:' came to us and asked if wo know \u> were trespassing on his land. 80-fore going away he gave us permission to stop there, and showed us a free we could have for firewood. We did nol, use it though, as we had plenty of firewood from the land and drains we weie working upon. The only trees we cU were two saplings to help to cais!ruct a chimney. PlaintiiT said it did not matter our horses i mining on his land. We put up fence to keep the horses oil his land. On more than one occasion we assisted Mr Edwards when shifting hjs cattle. Thomas Taylor, one of the defendants, on being sworn, stated that when they first pitched their camp they supposed they were on Government land. Edwards came down to them, and told them they might remain. Di I everything in their power to oblige plaintiff, who never said Anything to them about leaving till the first week in Febru iry, when he requested them to do so. Asked bim to point out iiis boundaries, an I he refused to do so. The plaintiff in this case quite faihd to prove that he hail sustained any

material damage by, tliS^fejeivlaiftS^bei-f^f*! on h : s land. 'Judgment Ayasresei;'veiV.lili^.'l 2 o'clock, and' then given J iorV r , plaintiff; * for £1 , « n <l costs £3l3s.. - V {'-\ James Clarke v. Joshua Cuff, claim; v £48 2s Brl, made up as follows : ' IMs- * hononreil bill £21, do., £28'"5s, interest anil goods £1 Gs Gd less contra account £2 8s 10« l. Plaint ff, on being sworn, stated be was a storekeeper at To Arolia, that the bill* referred to bore defendant's aiirna-, tnrc, and were given liim by the defendant for goods supplier and value received. Have presented them, and they have both been dishonoured. Claimed interest from January 12th. In reply to Mr Cuff : You were not not assisting me with money in my business. You lent me £5 once. I don't remember any more. (On defendant producing his cheque book plaintiff admitted he had lent him £12 cash on 12th November last, also £12 in October. Dills given were then current. ) I whs also lending you money and supplying you with goods. When I got first bill from you I »i«skoil you for a IM\ T . for £21 for money owing for goods supplied. At the time the bill was given you were due me to the amount of s,.me. and also an open account -unning. In reply to a remark mud 0 by defendant pl-iintiff exclaimed, "Oh ! he's raving. Your Worship." Both the plaintiff and defendant claimed to having rendered pecuniary assistance to the other. Judgment for amount claimed, with costs 255. Francis Pavitt v. James B.ixter, cairn £(>, for survey and plan of Doric claim, Waiorongoumai. PI lintiff. on beino- sworn, stated that at defendant's request he di I the voile Sued for, and th.it the charge was a fair and reasonable one. Hi piomisud to pay me the money, but has not done S(.. Me told mn at Chiislmns he would tvy and get the money from some one in Auckland. By Mr Campbell : Cannot remember the exact instruction- I received. N-»ver heard of Mr McCormick in the case till this year. Baxter promised me tho money several tim^s. James B.ixdT, sworn, stated : Instructed plaintiff to do the woi k referred to on behalf of Mr MoCoruuck, of Auck q land, and plaintiff gave ma tracings of the plan to forward to Mr McCoiiniek to see before the plan was finished. I was only acting as fnendlv agent for Mr MeCormick. Subsequently, to giving plaintiff instructions, I showed hi.v a telegram from Mr McCormick authorising me to have the work carried out. Tie ne» r er applied to rue to pay t!,e money on my own account till last Thurs lay. Plaiutiil, on being recalled, stated .that Baxter never s.iowe 1 him a telegram, or mentioned McCo.-mick's name wnen giving him instructions. Baxter was mamiiMiiy the Emily claim, and wanted to -irnalgamate it with the Doric. Judgment for £0. and costs £2 2s 6d. J. F Cocks r. Ja nes Maim-ay, cl li.v £\ Js Ud, for goods suppled in May, lfcihS. Judgment for amount, and costs 7s. S.UIU* v. Wdliam Davis (Paeron), claim £(> is, for Is supplied in January, 1882, and o ubs quently. Judgment for amount, and costs 11s.