RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume I, Issue 12, 2 May 1868, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before Major Croker, R.M. ) Monday, 27th April, 1868. Buchanan v. Duncan. — Claim foi 1 £12 11s. lOd. for goods supplied. De- \ livery of items was proven by plaintiff. k Defendant stated that Buchanan having ' become insolvent he was not entitled to J pay him. As he got the' account from Mr. Griffen he was willing to pay the account to the proper party if he had it. It came out in evidence that Buchanan had not gone through the Bankrupt Court, he having made an arrangement with his creditors, proceedings were stopped, and he purchased the property at a certain sum, the property reverted to him. . Verdict for plaintiff for amount and costs of Court. Tully v. Cowie. — This was an action for damages for £20, the defendant's cattle having entered into the agricultural lease of plaintiff at Wetherstones, and. did damage to above amount. Tully being sworn, deposed : I am occupier of an agricultural lease. I hold a certificate. I know the defendants Cowie's family. Reside near my house. Wife and three sons They reside on the father's property. They claim the cattle that did the damage. The ground is securely fenced. I recollect the 11th of January last. On the previous evening the fence was good. Cowie drove the cattle -into my paddock. I saw the cattle in the paddock. There were either five or six head. Cannot tell the amount of damage done on that day. On 3rd March injury was done to my slip pannei j it was smashed to a certainty. It was done wilfully. I did not see the cattle on that day. Cannot say the damage done on that day. I have sustained damages altogether to the amount of £30 or £40. Two acres, all planted in potatoes, totally destroyed. I have seen the cows frequently on the property. I saw them on 9th of March cross my property. Henry Rasmusson, sworn, deposed : 1 know the plaintiff and defendants. I live close to Tully's ground.. The ground is fenced. I saw cows in the paddock many times, but recollect no dates. I saw them in the paddock every Sunday. I have seen them in the paddock in the mornings before I went to work. I saw Mr. Cowie in the paddock after cattle. In the month of March I saw the cows in the paddock. Can't say the amount of damage. I have seen Andy Cowie drive cattle out of the paddock. I did not see any injury done to slip pannel. Mrs. Rassmusson gave evidence corroborative of previous witness. Verdict, plaintiff non-suited. The Magistrate stated that it was beyond a doubt that Tully was careless about his crop. He should be able to prove the amount of damage done on the days mentioned in the summons, and give a correct statement thereof, and not allow the Magistrate to fix damages haphazard. Harris v. Tuckey.— Claim £10 for damages done by defendant's pigs. The plaintiff owns a section of land at the corner of Whitehaven and Colonsaystreets. Part of that section was planted with potatoes. The crop recently sustained damage by pigs. Plaintiff saw pigs on the ground. They belonged to defendant. Never saw them then but once. There were more than three pigs. Could not tell their age. The potatoes are not worth digging. Without having evidence for the defence the plaintiff was non-suited, inasmuch as there was no proof that the damage was done by defendant's pigs. The proper course ought to have been by action for trespass, and ascertain before coming to Court the actual amount of damage done.