RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 186, 31 August 1871, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., K.M.)

Thuksday, 24th August. M'Rae v. Dropper. — The facts of this case were these. On the occasion of the sale of the goods and chattels of Donald and Hugh Clark, Mr. G runny bought the chance of a colt then sold him. In consequence of some difficulty about the matter, he did not take possession. Subsequently the colt was sold to Mr. Drapper by William Hayes for and on behalf of the trustee. To this colt Donald M'Kae laid claim, and sued Drapper for the colt, he having bought the colt in the month of April from Hugh Clark, and produced a duly stamped receipt for the payment. The decision of the Court was that the colt be returned to Donald M 'JEiae, on or before the 29th inst., the said Donald M'Kae to receive the sum of £3 for his loss on account of illegal detention ; and in the event of the animal not being forthcoming, the sum of £10, the defendant to pay costs of Court, professional fee, and witnesses' expenses. Mr. Copland appeared for the plaintiff, and Mi*. Gooday for defendant. WPherson v. M'Niclde.— Claim, £38, being amount of bill of exchange, and other expenses. The particulars in this case will appear when the verdict is given. Saturday, 26th August. (Before the same Magistrate,) John Tye, sen., and John Tye, jun., weie brought up from Waipori, by Constable Dunne, charged with having committed a petty larceny at Waipori (taking some timber that did not belong to them.) John Tye, sen. , was further charged with maliciously destroying property. The case was remanded to Waipori for one week to enable prosector to obtain witnesses. Monday, 28th August. ("Before the same Magis crate. ) Lowe v. Blair. — Blair was charged with having, on the 24th August, at Clarks Flat used violent and threatening language to Lowe, calculated to provoke a breach of the peace—" You ill-bred old English beggar ; I'll pull the grey hairs out of your head." Mr. Copland appeared for the accused. In this case it seems that there has been a deviation of the roads through Blair's ground, but not open for general traffic. Blair erected some kind of a fence across same. Lowe, on the day named, went through these gates without shutting them, which was the immediate cause of the quarrel. Lowe brought witnesses to prove that it was a surveyed road, and that they had a right to go through the gate without molestation. Mr. Copland objected to imparting any matter about gates and fences into the case, as it was clearly one of alleged assault. Hfe Worship elected to proceed. The plaintiff Lowe failed to prove that the road was legally open for traffic, as he could not produce the ' Gazette," nor any other authoritative document, showing that it was so. For the defence, Mr. Copland acknowledged that the deviation went through the accused's hind, but he never having received compensation, was entitled to protect his own interests by disallowing traffic. He produced documents showing that although the settlement of the matter would be speedily accomplished, and until the accused got his compensation, the ground was clearly his. lie (Mr Copland) believed that this action was brought to vex the accused, as he was known to be a very quite and inoffensive t man ; and even although these words t were used, he contended that they did not amount to an assault, and he hoped his Worship would deal with the case in such a manner as to prevent anything of a like trivial nature being brought before the Court in future. The accused made a statement to the effect that he had never made use of the words attributed to him ; in fact, it was

impossible for Lowe to hear anything that he could possibly say to him, as he was all the time roaring like a bull .

His Worship, in giving his decision, statod that from the whole circumstances of the case, he thought that if lie cautioned the accused it would meet all the requirements of ilie case. Discharged accordingly. Arthur v. Solomon. — In this case his Worship gave judgment. The facts are these :— A young man of the name of Solomon, residing in Lawrence, bought certain goods of Arthur, and left the district without making payment. Being a minor, Arthur sued the father, who resides in Dunedin. Whereupon the father made affidavit before the Resident Magistrate, Dunedin, as follows : — The boy left his house without his consent. He had no control over him. Gave him no money, nor anything when he left. His house was always open for him to go to. He repudiated payment.

His Worship, after reading the affidavit to plaintiff, arid reading the law on the subject from Roscoe and Addison, said that he was satisfied that the plaintiff had no claim against the father, and gave verdict for defendant.

Corporation v. Donovan. — Claim, £16, for city rate.

Mr. Donovan admitted the la<?t portion of the account, being the assessment on his property occupied by himself, and which amount he had offered to pay, but the first part of the account was rates against some of his tenants who had left the country, and he denied his liability to pay, as the Municipal Ordinance clearly pointed to the fact that those in occnpatioxi should first \>e proceeded against. The Council not having taken Bteps against those tenants within the Municipal year, debarred them from now suing him, as by their negligence he had lost his chance of recovering the rates from those parties. He further considered that the Assessment Roll was in a very confused state, he having got two assessments for the same year, and it was even dangerous for persons to hold property under such einu instances. He denied the right of the Town Clerk to charge liim with rates omitted in former years, us the matter emiM only be deali with formally by the Council, by the matter coming regularly before them, and noted in the Council minute book.

His Worship, having .gone over the matter, was of opinion that before the Council could proceed against the landlord, they must first take steps against the tenant in possession. Under these circumstances, he would give judgment for £10.

Corporation v. Hinde. — His Worship gave judgment in this case. The circumstances are these- It appeal's that some time ago the defendant purchased some property in Lawrence without making enquiry whether any rates were due. It appeared that various sums, to the amount of £4 odd, were owing by former tenants, and the Corporation sued him for the amount. He denied his liability.

His Worship said that this case stronger than the last, as all the tenants had left without any step's being taken against them by the Corporation. He therefore decided as in the above case, that steps must be taken against the tenant before an action lies at the door of the landlord. Verdict for defendant. The Town Clerk asked his Worship whether he would be kind enough to state a case to the Supreme Court in reference to the matter.

His Worship replied lie would do so with pleasure.