RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1454, 14 January 1886, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thhpju—Wednesday Jan. 18, 1885, [Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M.] trespass. William Bqdd was charged on the information ot W. Deßenzy with having trespassed for the purpose of fishing on 'land belonging to W. Deßenzy, as agent for Lord Lyttelton. Togswill appeared for the defendant. His Worship said he did not think there was such an offence as trespass for the purpose of fishing. There was spch an offence as trespass in pursuit of game, Mr Deßenzy said he brought a similar case before the Court in 1882, and His Worship inflicted a fine. Qjs Worship said he did not thins there was any suph offence. Could Mr Deßenzy quote any authority or statute?

Mr Tosswiil said there was still another fatal objection. The informs* tion was that he did trespass on land belonging to W. DvKenzy, as agent for Lord Lyttelton. If be was only agent, (he land could not belong to him. His Worship believed the information vras bad, and would bare to be withdrawn,

Mr Tosswiil asked for expenses. It was not the fault of bis client that the information was bad. His client could prove that he was not trespassing on the land at all, and that be was only on the river-bed.

His Worship said if the question of title were raised he could not deal with it. He asked Mr Lynch what be thought of the case, Mr Lynch said that he had seen the information before the case came before the Court, and had come to the conclusion that it was bad, There was not, so far as he knew, any such offence as trespass tor the purpose of fishing. His Worship said he would have to decide the case against Mr Deßenzy with costs.

Mr Deßenzy said he had no objection to Mr Budd fishing, only that Mr Budd had not behaved like a good neighbor to him.

His Worship said be would like Messrs Deßenzy and Bndd to settle the dispute amicably. He would like to meet them after the Court rose, and try, as a friend, to settle the dispute. Mr Tosswiil said he expected there would be plenty of time before the express left. civin CASES. Peter Coira v. Gamble—Claim L 5 19s.—The plaintiff said L 5 had been paid, and judgment was given for 19s and costs. J. Tangney v. A, R. Kirk—Claim I2s.— Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. W. Moore v. Thomson and Smith,— Claim LlO 10s, Mr Lynch, who appeared for the plaintiff, said that in this case one of the defendants admitted the liability, and would confess judgment, but the other disputed some of the items. On the suggestion of His Worship, a short adjournment was granted so as to examine the items in dispute. After somerainutes’ absence with plaintiffs and defendant, Mr Lynch returned into Court, and said they bad agreed about the amount, and one of the defendants would accept judgment being entered np against himself provided the other was allowed to stand out of it, Qe (Mr Lynch) would not agree to this, as he believed the one who accepted the responsibility had some sinister motive in doing so. Mr Smith said his motive for getting Thomson ont of it was because he bad dissolved partnership with Thomson, and be did not think him liable.

Mr Lynch said the difficulty could be got over by Mr Smith paying the money into Court. He could not otherwise agree to the proposal. Mr Smith bad said that he intended to fight the ease ii the judgment would not be entered up against himself. He (Mr Lynch) did not know what be bad to figbt. He would call the plaintiff. The plaintiff gave evidence to the effect that he commenced to work (or defendants in August, 1885, and the amount claimed remained due to him.

F. Thomson, who was called by the Court, said be dissolved partnership with Smith on the 21st Sept.; and be thought Moore bad been paid up to that date. Smith was the book-keeper, and led him to understand Moore was paid. His Worship said he must give judgment against the firm of Thomson and Smith. He gave judgment for L 9 8s lid and costs. W. L. Duncan v. J. Mailer-Claim L 8 2s,

Mr Tosswill appeared for the plaintiff, and said the amount had betn paid into Court a few minutes ago. All they wanted now was the solicitor’s fees and costs.

J. Mailer, the defendant, said the money bad been paid into Court by another party, not by him. The fact was, a man named Taggart took the ploughing from him and let it to Mr Duncan. He did not know Mr Duncan in the matter at all. Taggart bad now paid the money into Court, His Worship said under such circumstances be would bear the case.

W. L. Duncan said Taggart came to him and asked him would he do some ploughing for Mr Mailer, as Mr Mailer did not like to ask witness to do it as they were not friends. Witness said he did not care about disputes ; b« would plough for Mailer as soon »s for anyone pise, In reply to questions, witness said that Mr Mailer was present with himself and Taggart when they agreed about (be ploughing, J, Mailer, the defendant, said he was ready to settle with Taggart about the ploughing, as it was to him he let it, Taggart owed him the money, so that be bad already paid him. In reply to Mr Tosiwill, be admitted the amount which Taggart owed him was due before Taggart filed. Sugrue was called as a witness, but bis evidence consisting only of a coqyersstion between Taggart and the defendant was not admissable, His Worship said the defendant had failed to prove that be was not present when the bargain was made with regard to the ploughing. The land also was his, IJe woijld giye judgment for the amount claimed and costs, E. Lee v. E. Counihan—Claim Lll tts. L 5 IDs had been paid into Court, and judgment was given for the balance with costs,

J. Blyth y, A. Alien-Claim L2 7s 10d. Judgment for amount claimed and coats. W. Carston r. B. Turpin— Claim L 5 17s lOd. Judgment by default for otponnt claimed and costs. The Court then rose.