RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XV, Issue 4791, 17 May 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

YEBTEBDAY. (Before H. Kenrick, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL SIDE.

Judgment for Flaiotiffa were given in the follow ing cases:—Casey y. Magnolia G.M. Co., claim £19 16s 6d, goods ; Mr Miller appeared for plaintiff; costs, £2 17s.—Douglas T; Hopeba Hikairo, claim £3010s, disbonoered cheque.' Mr Miller appeared for plaintiff; costs, £217 a 6d.«— Douglas v. Brown,. claim £21 0s lid, goodß ; judgment confessed ; costs, £2 17s.—Clark t. Sly, claim £15 2s 9d, goods; costs, £1 4s.—Mears and Co. v. Potter, claim £4155, goods; Mr Miller for plaintiff; costs,* 12s. Defended Cases. Simpson t. JB.obertson.-Tbe claim was £10, a balance alleged' to be due by a mail contractor to one of bis drivers for 21 weeks' services.—Defendant, whose evidence had been taken at Tauranga, swore that the rate of-wages was 15s per week, instead of £1, as claimed, and the ! sum of £4 12s had been paid into Court. —Mr Miller appeared in* defence.—After | hearing evidence of defendant's mother and of Mr Curtis, defendant's agent, judgment was given for the amount paid into Court.

West v. Hohepa flikairo, claim £48 16s, work done.—Mr-Miller appeared for plaintiff. The Bench received a telegram from Mr S. liochfort, solicitor, of Auckland, retained by defendant, that he had missed the steamer. The case was therefore adjourned for a week. SmitbAv. Stone.—Claim £30, damages to plaintiff's orchard by floatage of timber in the Kauae'ranga river. Mr Lush for plaintiff, and Mr Miller for defendant.—B. N. Smith deposed that a flood about 12 months ago damaged the plantation, and he had received £72 10s from the defendant. In March another flood occurred, when a portion of the orchard was covered with debris and logs, and 18 trees, valued at from £2 10s to £3 each, destroyed. a About one*third of an acre, worth about £100, had been affected by the flood. Eight logs remained on the land. The damage was attributable to the backing of the water at defendant's booms, about f of a mile distant—James Craig valued the damaged trees at from £4 to £5 each, and considered the land which had been swept away worth

about £60 per acre. —R. B. McGregor assessed the trees at £60, and the land at £2 10s per acre. The logs now on th? land caused the principal damage to the trees.—A. Mayo, nurserynman, estimated the damage to the apple trees at from £2 10s to £3 each, and the peaches and others at 15s each. " The orchard might be worth £100 per acre. The logs must have passed over the fruit,trees.—J. B. Mason had visited plaintiff's orchard in February, prior to the flood. The trees were wellgrown, and one or two of them bore-good crops. The annual produce of the apple tree? would be worth £2, and the peaches about £1. Was well acquainted with the river, and he believed that had there been no booms the current would not have set towards the ~ land. — John Teddy, farmer, gave corroborative evidence.—Mr Miller said his client was prepared to pay for the damage caused by his logs, but plaintiff's claim was excessive.—John Frater, land agent, estimated the extent of land injured at rather less than a quarter of ah,acre. Valued the orchard as a whole at from £60 to £70 per acre. Valued the land.and trees,washed away at about £15;-—John McPike, - deposed that the flood in July carried a large quantity of rubbish .and a number of logs upon Mr Smith's land. Saw the land frequently - between .then and the March flood, and coold state that the same debris was there now assuring this interval. Did not think any additional damage had been caused by the last flood. —Eobort Stone, who had been one; of the arbitrators on the "occasion of last year's flood, deposed that no* further damage had been done by the more recent flood. Seven or eight branded' logs had been added, but the quantity of debris remained about the same. The banks had ben protected by .floating booms, which, however, carried away. The logs now on the land would be . likely to pass over the tops of, the trees.-—His Worship said the liability of defendant was not disputed, and the question was as to the amount of damage. The measure of damages would be the full value of the 17 trees- Taking the valuation-of the trees'by Mr Mayo, an expert, he would give judgment for £22 15s and costs, £7 3s.

Roberts r. Whitehouse. — Action brought to recover £9 19s 6d, for alleged wrongful conversion of certain furniture. The plaintiff had occupied one of defendant's houses at Te Aroha*, and he left the district, his wife placing the goods upon a neighbor's premises, where plaintiff seized them, with the intention of distraining for rent. Mr Miller submitted that a landlord could only seize on his own premises, and not goods which bad been removed. The defendant deposed that he bad been holding the goods, expecting his late tenants to settle, and he still had them in his possession. In distraining he had simply taken an inventory of them, and left them with the neighbour.—His Worship said there was no doubt that the goods had been removed without intention of distraint. As there had been no fraudulent intent, the landlord could not follow them. Judgment for amount claimed, to be reduced to one shilling on delivery of the goods with 48 hours. Costs, 2s 6d. Judgment Summons.

: Farreli v. Kenny, judgment claim for £1 lls 6d.—Plaintiff deposed that debtor, a single man^ had been in constant employment at Te Aroha, and receiving good Wages for some time past, ao that he was quite capable of satisfying the judgment. His Worship ordered thatfthe debt, with? 10s costs, be paid within a fortnight; the alternative being 14 days' imprisonment. Clark v. Hobepa Hikairo, a judgment claim for £17 Os 4d.—Adjourned for a fortnight to arrange a settlement.