RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1543, 17 August 1886, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Geraldine—Monday, Aug. 16, 1886 [Before B. H. Pearpoint, W, H. Moore, and A. H. Brisco, Esq.’s, J.P.’s.] TRESPASS IN PURSUIT OP GAME. W. McKay was charged on the information of J. Murray with trespassing in pursuit of game on lands belonging to the trustees.of the late W. K. Macdonald. Defendant pleaded not guilty. J. Murray, sworn, said that on July 30th he had found defendant in the paddock with a dog and gun. Did not catch him in the paddock, but saw him there, and went towards defendant, who then tried to get away, but he (plaintiff) got on his horse and caught him, when defendant said he was only after a hare.

Defendant, sworn, said that the dog chased the hare into the paddock, and he went in after it. He had no questions to ask plaintiff. Plaintiff said it was only when defend ant saw him that he endeavored to get away. He sr» plaintiff coming and go*, through the . nee. To, the ILnch ; This was the second time defendant had been caught trespass ing. He had been caught before and warned then.

Defendant was fined 30s and costs, and warned that if he came before the Court again they would deal more severely with him. CIVIL CASES. L. Newport and J. M, Sutherland v. E. Wbffenden -Claim £2 Bs. Dr foster for plaintiff and Mr Raymond {of 'White, Smithson and Raymond) for defendant, who did not appear. J. M. Sutherland, sworn, stated th. t the account as put in was correct.

To Mr Raymond : The item for a dray was for a new body of a dray, which {ilaintiffs were to make for defendant. )efendant took it away before it was finished and plaintiffs had told him that if he brought it back within a week they would finish it. Had seen him several times since. Had never told him they could not finish it because they were in financial difficulties. Defendant brought it back a short time ago, after keeping it two years, and left it on the premi bs. Plaintiff bad written a letter on July 16'1 refusing to do anything to the dray aft r a lapse of two years. The sum of £6 10s was for a complete dray, which they were prevented from making because be (defendant) took it away. The harrows were properly reeled, but the tines were a little too long. Plaintiff often demanded payment. Had often demanded payment before the 16th July. Promised to do the harrows if he brought thmi within a week. Dr Foster read a letter from that was really an answer to a let’ei written two years before, stating ilia ho had left the dray at plaintiff’s yard.

To Dr Foster ; We asked defendant r< peatedly to bring back the dray to : finished. We asked him in 1885 on several occasions to bring it back. There was no reason whatever for our being in difficulties preventing us from working at the dray. He told us once it would be a reason for preventing our working at his dray, and we said it was no reason. It was entirely his fault that the dray was not brought to us to be finished. Mr Raymond pointed out that the only items disputed were those for the dray and harrows. The sum had originally been £6 10a and 30s, and defendant only objected because the work had,not been carried out in the manner contracted for. He submitted that the work had not been dote according to the contract and plaintiff therefore could not recover.

... Dr Foster quoted one or two cases of a similar nature, where the parties concerned had kept work too long before bringing it back to bo finished, and when the matter had been taken into Court the case had been given against them. The Bench were of opinion that defendant should nothave kept (he work so long without bringing it back to bs finisher]. Judgment would be given for the amount claimed with coats, no solicitor’s fee being allowed.