RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Before H. Kenrick, Esq., R.M. Tuesday, Oct. 14, 1884.

Te Aroha News, Volume II, Issue 72, 18 October 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Before H. Kenrick, Esq., R.M. Tuesday, Oct. 14, 1884.

PoiJCB CABR. Mary O'Hallor.in was brought up by Sergeant Emerson on the charge of being drunk in th<? Domain grounds on the 13th hist. The case was proved, and prisoner fineil 5s or to be imprisoned till the rising of tho Court. Prisoner was arraigned on a second charge, viz., that of using obscene language on same occasion. The case was pioved, and judgment reserved for 14 days. Civil Casks. Jhiis(Mi and Son v. Win. Hunt, claim £f5 5s 2d for goods. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount and costs £1 10s ii(\. J. B. Smith v. Wood, Shand and Co., merchants, Ohristcnurch. This was an action for the recovery of damages set down at. £100 for breach of agreement and non-delivery of a potatoe cutter and plaute.. Adjourned for one month for the return of evidence from C-'iristchurch. Charles 8. Stafford r. John P. Stodart, claim £b, balance due on dishonoured cheque. Judgment for amount, and costs £1 Is 6d. C. S. Pyne v. Tho«» Hector, claim £7 16s 9d for goods. Judgment for amount and costs £1 16s 6d. Eina Mokena and others v. M. W. D. O'Keefe, claim £20 c amages. This was an acti< n tor the recovery of damages as above for the removal of a wooden house by defendant from No. 4 Section (business site) Block 11, Te Aroha, of which he is the lessee, Mr J. A. Miller (solicitor), appeared for plaintiff. George Lipsey, sworn : Am one of the plaintiffs in this case. Ema Mokena is my wife. My wife and children are ihe owners of fie freehold of tne block ! referred to. My wife and self are trustees for our children. It came to my knowledge that {defendant purposed removing the house he Had erected on the ground. Sent him a written notice | not to do so. After receiving that . notice defenuant removed the building. ! The building was a fixture, nailed to the ground blocks. Defendant never received -any permi<si mto remove from us. l I consider tne value of the building was from £30 to £35. The house was 16ft xl 2 t. I consider the loss sustained by plaintiffs wii.ii regard to their reversion* ,wy interest t » be about £'20. M. W. D. O'K>ttfp, sworn : Am defendant in tuis action and lessee of secii »n 4 block 11 referred to. I have leinoved tho house ; thought I had » : light to. do so.^.YV&s told not to remove jit. The building cost me under £15. laid £5 I afterwards spent to have i !l )«*d. I still hold the section. Bot , Lrli 1 Ljpsey . and yftje: Mining Inspector

old me not to miiiovh it. I consulted Mr ATIIIpi 1 (solicitor) on the matter ; lie ulvisel him not to remove it, J (lit l no; take his advice.. (Laughter.) In reply to Mr Miller, defendant state'! *it was quite true ho told the Mining Inspector, " IP he could not; remove it he' would, make it so small that he (Mining Inspector) could smoke it in his pipe." (Great luighter.) Judi'tn^nt reserved for one month. His Worship remarking that defendant had no right whatever to remove the building. The question was, however, what amount of reversionary interest could plaintiffs' claim with regard to a huilding of this sort at end of 21 yea>"B, the hngth of the leas". C. S. Pyne v, Joseph Read, claim £7 12s 2 I for goods... Judgment for amount and costs £1 Os Gd. W. Wilson v. 0 A. Comes, claim £1 10s 8d for goods. Adjourned for 14 days. Montague and Orr v. P. T. Jansen, claim £2 2s For work done Judgment for amount, anil costs 12*. .Smith and iSeldon v. J. O'Hea, claim £3 7i> 8d for goods. Judgment for amount, and costs 10s. John Coleman v. Hugh Rea, claim £6 tf s*,5 *, 32 weeks' rent. Judgment for amount, and costs 1 2s Johna Cuff v. James Clarke. The plaint in this case was as follows: — 1. That the defendant on or about tic 4th day of March last recovered a judgment in this Court against the plaintiff for the sum of £40 7s 8d ; 2. That on or about the 10th day of March last abresaid the defendant caused a warrant of distress to be issued out of the said Court upon the said judgment, and caused to I>p seized and taken thereunder certain horses, cattle, and other goods belonging to plaintiff ; 3. That on or about the 20th day of Marcii afor»said, the phiiutiff satisfied the said judgment and warrant of distress, and ti»e defendant withdrew from and abandoned the possession of the sswd horses, cattle, and ot'ier goods under the said warrant of distress ; 4. Tnat on or about the 19th d.-iy of June last, and, notwithstanding such satisfaction of the said judgment and warrant of distress, and notwithstanding such withdrawal and abandonment, the defendant wiongfully caused to be issued out of the Court a second warrant of distress upon the said judgment to the great injury and damage of plaintiff ; 5. That on or about September 16th last, and, notwithstanding such satisfaction, withdrawal, and abandonment aforesaid, the defendant wrongfully caused to be issued out of this Court a Hrird warrant of distress upon the said judgment, and wrongfully caused to be seized and taken thereunder certain horses, cattle, and other goods of the .plaintiff's, and wrongfully caused the same to be sold by public auction on or about the 24th day of September last, to the great damage of the plaintiff. Wherefore the plaintiff claims to recover from the defendant the sum of £40, the value of the said horses, cattle, and other goods so seized and sold as aforesaid, and the further sum of £60 for special damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the wrongs beforementioned. It appeared from the evidence in this case that about tiie time the 6rst warrant of distress was issued and certain horses cattle, &c, to the value of £40 to £.">(>, seized, ami held by plaintiff for several days, a P.N. for £24 fell due, and Mr Pavitt interviewed defendant on behalf of plaintiff, with a view to having a settlement of some kind effecte I. As a result of this plaintiff was led to understand everything had been satisfactorily arrai ged. and the property under distraint was released by defendant. Tue arrangement was as follows: Cnh and orders to the extent of £14 to £15 weiv p lid Mr Clar .c, togetne.* with two promissory notes — one at two months for £31 14s, an 1 oiu at three niontns. for £31 19s, plaintiff giving in addition <is collateral security a lien over aforesaid stock, etc., and also over '*e,rtain mining shares. This settlement inclu lei the amount of judgment P.N. for L 24 interest, outstanding debts, etc., iv f.iet, effected a complete squaring up to date. Both P.N.s were dishonoured. In th" face oV above settlement Mr Clarke caused a second warrant of distress to be issued, as set forth in plaint, which, however, was never put into execution. A third warrant' was, however, issued, as already stated, under which the goods were seized and sold by public auction for some Ll9. The defence set up was to the etiect that the settlement made through Mr Pavitt was not a full and absolute settlement, but merely till the P.N.s referred to should come due, and further that the cash and orders given were paid on account of the P.N. for L 24, which fell due at that time, and not as against the claim n full. The evidence was very voluminous, and the case took up a large portion ot the day. Messrs Pavit.t, Win. Hyde, Gr. Wilson, and A. Menzies being examined as witnesses. His Worship, iv summing up, stated hat there could be no doubt thit tlte wo promissory notes wore taken in full s itisf.iction of all that* was due defenant !>y plaintiff at that time, and that tlie defendant, requiring collateral security, same was given in the form of -crip and cattle, etc. A full settlement vas made and an agreement to that effect entered into, of that there could »» jio doui»t. ' Plaintiff was, therefore,' .'airly entitled to the value of the horses. '.• iti.le, etc, that had been seize 1 an I sold, wnich had been satisfactorily 'prove Itobe at least, wo th,L4O. Wvt i respect to tne claim for npeoial damages, ,io doubt plaintiff uiust have suffered in r he eyes ot' the public r,hrou\rh tie pro'eeediu o r s taut Ymd been tuueu. On the

<»rh<'r iand it must be taken inta consideration tin* trouble defendant had !)een put to, «n«l tne time he hail been kept out of Ids money, etc?, ; under those circumstances he wonl<l ailow Lla special damages. Ju ljcment was given for Ls"> and costs L(i 14s. Mr J. A. Miller a p pea re ! for plain fciff, and Mr H. E. Campbell for defen lant. Jas. Clarke v. Josliu i C'iff, i;l»iim \J\ 17s i)d, judgment summons. Adjourned for 14 days.