LAWRENCE DISTRICT COURT.

Tuapeka Times, Volume I, Issue 18, 13 June 1868, Page 2

LAWRENCE DISTRICT COURT.

(Before His Honor, Justice Gray.) , ■ . Tuebdat, 9th June. TuTLY v. Cowib.— Mr. Keen for plaintiff, Mr. Campbell for defendant. Claim £40, for damages alleged to have been done to plaintiff's crops. This case was tried before Major Croker on 27th April last, whqn the plaintiff asked for a nonsuit, The evidence for the plaintiff was very indifferent ; his foucos by his own witnesses were declared to be very poor, th« rails oi the fence being styled as common firewood, and in many places tied up with flax. The defendant endeavored to prove that the cattle were not his property when the damages alleged was ' committed, and produced a document duly stamped, when he on 25th day of February last' sold the whole of his cattle marked J. C. to his son Andrew. As the document specified no consideration it was declared valuel«n, rod* that ft* tuHl« still belonged to

James Cowie, and liable for any damage done by them. The defendant proved that in. many places there was no fence, and 'Hat other cattle than his own were often 1^ 3i& plaintiff's paddock. This concluded the case. His Honor remarked that the laws in reference to fencing wera in a mosfc unsatisfactory state ; however, he had every reason to believe from the evidence that damage* were done by Cowie's cattle, but the plaintiff was certainly to blame in allowing trespasses to go on for such a length of time without taking any steps to get a remedy. He would therefore order the defendant to pay £5 at damages, costs of Court, and 30s. expenses. Bebtbakd t. Cabnte.— Mr. Keen for appellant; Mr. Bertrand conducted his own case. Some time ago Bertrand sued Carnioand Co., of Switzer's, for damages sustained by him, in consequence of Carnie and Co.'s. race damaging his claim. The claim was forLl4O. The case was heard before Warden. Stratford, when eight jurymen were impannelled, and tried the case. It appears from the evidence that although Carnie had a right to strike cff two, and Bertrand other two, ta reduce the number to four, Carnie did not avail himself of his right ; whereas it appears, that Bertrand was desirous of having thenumber reduced. At all events, the case wa» tried by the eight, Mr. Carnie paying for th« extra number.' The judgment waa against Carnie and Co., damages L6B odd, and L 22. odd expenses, which Carnie was obliged to pay- Carnie and Co. gave notice of appeal,, on the ground : Ist. That the jury was au illegal tribunal, that four only should be the ! number ; 2. That the Warden misdirected thejury; 3. That the breaking of the race was through an act of Providence,, over which they had no control ; and 4. That the damages, were excessive. The appellant opened hit. case by stating that the tribunal was illegally constituted, and proceeded to show from, the Goldfields Regulation that such was the case ;, and also, that Carnie and Co., being defendants, had no right t* pay the damages whilst notice of appeal was given. The plaintiff was entitled to pay the costs of the Court in thefirst instance. To await the decision of theupper Court, much time was required (some two hnurs) in searching the different Gold*fieldi Acts, &c, referring to the case, his. Honor being assisted by Mr. Warden Stratford, and it must have appeared evident to. any one present that the continual tinkering with these laws was a source of great trouble and annoyance: His Honer, however, with that patience and courtesy which has gained, him the cognomm of the Just Judge, mastered, the whole case. As respects the statement that the Warden misdirected the Jury, the Judge aiked of Warden Stratford to state, a* near as he could, what he had said to the Jury. Mj. Stratford, in a masterly manner,, gave a resum/i of his address, and stating his reasons why he had given his verdict he stated that if Carnie and Co. had looked after the lower half of the race as well as the upperpart, there would have been no damage, and that instead of the damage having bten dgrie ' by an act of Providence, the whole resufiHßn Carnie and Co. not having on the race the necessary appliances to render the same harm-, less in case of sudden changes. At this stage of the proceedings, his Honor asked Warden Stratford to take a seat alongside of him, observing that the reporter's box was not hi*. proper place. After a lengthened conversational argument, in which appellant and respondent took part, the Judge ordered that the sum of LSS odd paid by Carnie and Co., also, the sum of Lll odd, being half the expenses, should be paid back, to Carnie and Co, The L 4 12s. paid by Carnie and Co. for thsextra jurymen, was a matter for which Carnio and Co. were liable; io he adjudged that a new trial should take place at cwitzer's. His Honor gave a lengthened •tatement in reference to the law as related to- aota of Providence, and instanced a case relative to ships, that entered the Liverpool Docks, but by a sudden visitation of Providence, the turbulence of the water burst the dock-gates, whereby damage was done to shipping. The case being tried, the Dock Trustees wera found liable, through, their gates not being sufficiently strong. He fully stateihis opin-~ ion on this matter, so that both parties might know the law in case of any future appeal in this case, stating, however, that should thecase come again before him, he would give it his utmost and careful attention. The appellant stated that he felt gratified at his Honor's, Address.