RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XVI, Issue 5118, 12 June 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

- (Before |[,Kenrick: „Esq.> sß .M.)«, iT .. f r iOI jCfryfi* side. s \, n fsf] Judgments fob Plaintiffs. ' : J. TeMflfMA J!Tnil£?r.^Claim;|^|lOs 6tl.—Judgment for amount claimed,,and, costs; £1 Os-edi''-- •■».--' '***> fi J. Fletcher v. WrJones?,—Claim, £22 Qs 7d.—Judgment1 for^amoatf^''claimed, and costs, £2 4s. BAGGOTT V. WAITOA BOAD BOABD, This was a claim for £30, damages ing curred owing to the cutting of a drain into the plaintiff's land at Te Aroha. Mr Miller appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hay (Waikato) for defendants. Before proceeding with the case, a con* tention was. raised by Mr Hay that the Court had no jurisdiction in the matter.' —The E.M. said he would take the evidence before deciding on the point.' - '■' ' G. T. Townsend sworn, deposed : He was custodian of plans in the surrey office. (Produced the plans showing the drains marked on-the land). With one exception the roads marked on the plan were district roads. Did not' know whether they had been dedicated as such or not. Thfl land belonged to Government when it was surveyed, though portions of it had since been sold.

W. ; P. Ohepmell deposed—He was of the Waitoa Road Board. (The Gazette defining the boundaries of district was put into Court). The cutting of the drain had been authorised by the Board under the Public Works Act. It would not hare been any less damage to Baggott's land to connect with the river. The Board did not intend to carry it to the river. The drain „had been taken partly through the land. . ; ,-.--. .- r After hearing the arguments of counsel for both sides, His Worship reserved as to whether tbe oaie was in the jurisdiction of the Court.; lo James Baggbtt, deposed.—-He owned t 64, block 11, of Te Aroha, About 12

months ago he ascertained that a draifl had been cut into his land by the Waitoa. Bond Board, and saw Mr U. Parr, a member of the Board, about it, wh* said the Board intended to take the drain through to the river, but were short of funds at tbe ! time. The ditch made drained a Iwre* quantity of water on to his land. Ah'it 15 chains of the drain had been cut into his land. Tbe cutting of the drain bid thrown a large quantity »f water on bit (witness') land, which would not other wine have been there, and had thus materially damaged^it. . v It, w.Quld. cost 17s 6d per 'chain "to "iremoTe' the water; there were about *28 chains to complete it to the river. He oulr claimed damigrs, ,to,ha»e the water, now on hi«4««d- carried off Before the .drain was cut, there waa very little water on" his land, and could be travelled over. Considered £80 a reasonable sum to assess damages at. {-,Bj Mr Hayr. Did not/know why it was necessary to cut the drain into his land. He had seen rid watercourses on it. Cattle ran over the land before the cutting of the drain, but that could tool be done now.., He had crossed, the land on horseback himself.' ' •' ••

Thos, Stanley, residing at Te Aroha, deposed : Some, .time ago be was.engaged draining the land referred to, and knew that owned by Mr Baggott. L A: contract ,was let to him by. the Waitoa Road Board to cut a drain into it; began the drain in Mr Baggott'a land. There was very little fall there—perhaps 1£ inches to the chain/ The land was of a swampy nature, but there was no water 6n it, except in winter; cattle could go upon it. Did not thiuk the land had been much damaged. The Court- adjourned .till two o'clock, and on resuming, the Bench. said that it had considered the matter, and must'nonsuit the plaintiff, as the Court had no jurisdiction. The case should have been brought as a claim for compensation, under the Tublic Works Act, before two Justices of the Peace.—Mr Miller asiteVl for an order as to costs,: and the Bench thought that as the plaintiff had brought the defendant and the witnesses for the defence-to the Thames, they should pay , }beir costs. . Costs to the amount of £39 16s were allowed defendants. D. MILIER T L J. TOWNBEKD.

Claim,.£^6, for sacks supplied during : a straw cutting contract. Mr" Miller appeared for the defendant. The defence was that a smaller number of sacks had been ordered than was claimed for. The plaintiff stated that be had undertaken^ to out 1 certain -attiftr-tfr Townsend, and hacbagreed to supply the sacks,"which he-did, and for th* vatar.Hf these sacks he sued.—-JJ., JtolUnon deposed to having supplied several dozen Backs to ™Miller for Town* send. —The defendant's counsel said ,that more sacks, than'had been ordered bad been delivered, and all that his client was liable for had been paid into Court. —The defendant " swore* that he did not - order more thirty dozen sacks {the value -of. which he<paid into ;£ourt). So large- a number „of ■ saok»; as, that sued for was not .required for the chaff he had to cut. The bags he did not use were there for Mr Miller to take away when he chose.—A witness named John Alley, deponed: that the bags supplied were very inferior, and another named Henry Merlin corroborated his evidence, and deposed' to the bags,'. being \laoded, and, at the plaintiff's request, put under cover.— The Bench decided that,the balance of testimony,wasin.f*vor of the plaintiff, and gave a verdict accord* ingly for the amout claimed with costs. The.Courtadjourned. : ..., r