RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1196, 26 June 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

GrERALDINE—WEDNESDAY, JIJNJB 25, 1884.

(Before H. G. Baddely, Esq., R.M., and Rev. G.Barclay,J.P.) CIVIL CASES. Walter Kitsen (Acting Chief Commissioner of Grown Lands) v. Joseph Lewii. Mr Martin appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hameraley for the defendant. This was an action brought by the Watte - L-tnds Board, Ohriitohnroh, againit tinnr, who is a teleotor of land situate between Orari and Winchester, under the 69 !;h clause of the Land Aot, to regain possesi >u of the said land, the conditions of sale not havicg been oomplied with. William Henry Sh»w, deposed : I am Record 01e*k at the Lmd3 Board office, OhrUtchurch, aad know r,he plaintiff, Walter Kitson. The defendant 11 & selector UDder the Land Aot. I produce the Beoord book in which are entered applications and declarations made by pnrohaserg of deferred payment lands, which are filed in the book, and . nra the oily reoords kept of suoh. I know Reginald Foster, who is Inspector and Banger appointed under the Act. The signature attached to a report is th»j of Reginald Fjeter

Mr Hamersley contended that Mr Foster should ba in Court, so that he might be c,*oßs-eximined. The Magistrate ooncurred. Mr Martin said in all probablity he would .- havs to ask for an adjournment for Mr FjxtjT t > be preiant. Etamiiotion continued: I received the letter produced from defendant. In consequence of what the ranger reported to the B >ard, the letter called on defendant to appear before them. I swear that in the orei >ary official routine the notioe to def<) daafc was pos'.ed to him. I know plaintiff« signature attaohed to the notioe produced. The defendant hat not surrendered his title to tha land. Joseph Lewis deposed : I am defendant in th'» action. This is my signature on the original license. I haya not given up pissession to the Board. I have had the land close on fire years, and hare resided on it. I built a bouse on it about six months ago, and have lived on it einoi). By Mr Hamersley: I have not paid iustalmenti to the B>ard since I put the house up. 1 never hid possession demanded of mo, I next r refused te giye up possession to anybody. The plaintiff's case being conoluded, Mr Hamersley submitted that no lioense had been produced, and it was neoeisary for the Land Board to issue a license. There v was no contract before the Court to bring

defendant under the Act. There was simply an application before the Court. Mr Martin remarked that the hoense, if issued, was in the hands of the defer dant He was in possession under 8 oontract and bad proved the payment of a deposit, and he alio swore that he had not fulfilled the conditions of the contract. If he were not in posseßiion of the land under the deferred payment system, then he was either a trespasser or a tenant at will, and in either case he came under the jurisdiction of tho Court. Mr Hamersley haying replied thereto, His Worship considered that the lioonse should have been produced in Court. It wag a very serious matter to take a persons license away, and he should reserve hit judgment. A iimilar ease sgainst W BmsKin wns adjourned for a month. Same t. Patrick Burke. Mr Martin appeared for plaintiff. The defendant said he was willing to give the land up, and handed his license into Court.

Same ▼. Elizabeth Lewi*. Mr Martin appeared for plaintiff. Similar evidence was add need as in the first case. Mr Martin asked that the case might be adjourned in the absence of defendant. (Similar cases against All wood and Cowley were adjourned, in the absenoe of defendants, to 23rd July next. In the first one His Worship stated he would give judgment next Court day. F. R- Flatman v. Alexander Findlay— Claim £3 03 9i —Judgment for amount claimed and ootte. J. Waite v. J. Hull—Claim £l3.—Judg ment by default with coats. J. Mundell and Co. v. D. MoLecd— Claim £2 10s.—Judgment by default with costs.

Shaw v, Oarston—Claim £4> 16s. Dr Foster for plaintiff, and Mr Hameraley for defendant. This notion was brought for use and possession of land, the rent for which waß now saed for.

After hearing evidence, His Worship gave judgment for defendant. N.Dunlop and Co. v. G. Ward—Claim £3 oa3d. ' e . Mr Hameraley appeared for the defendant, who stated that the question rose on defennant's liability for an order. The plaintiff deposed that the order was not being sued for, bnt the current account. The order had been paid and handed oyer to the defendant. Thomas Sncrratfc, depoied : I remember seeing the order in queition. lb was charged to defendant, and the scoount rendered to him every, month George Ward, deposed : I am defendant. I paid plaintiff, £3 10s Bd, and left a balanos of £3 (the amount of order) as I would nob reoognise it. The £3 lOi 8d was the amount I owed for the goods I had. I told defendant I would not pay the order. His Worship nonsuited the plaintiffs. Taylor and Flatman v. A. Bed path. In this case plaintiff asked for judgment for 3s, being adjournment fee from last

Court day, for the purpose of plaintiff ascer taining whether a cheque that had been lent for the amount sued for was good. His Worehip gave judgment accordingly. ALLEGED TRESPASS. Henry Milner was charged with this offence. Mr Hamersley asked for the information to be dismissed, as no offence had been dis-

closed. His Worship struck the case out accordingly. ' [We are compelled to hold over the evidence in a case of alleged laroeny of oate, against Alexander Martin, till our next issue].