RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 208, 25 January 1872, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

f ßefore W. L. Simpson, Esq., Tt.M'., and

H. Bastings, Esq., J.P.) Monday, 22nd Janvaiiy, 18^2.

Sutton v. Mackay ■ -Claim, £15, for damage done to defendant's residence by the building known as the old ' ' Recorder' 1 office falling thereon, on the night of the late gale. Mr. Gooday appeared for plaintiff. Plaintiff stated the damage .done to his residence. He could not specify the various items, but had a witness in court who had estimated the damage. Thomas Anderson gave an account of the damage done, and esti-mated-it £9' 10s. For defendant, 1). M 'Donald estimated the damage done to the building at about £4, and repair of chimney ,_ about 355. • Defendant stated that' the blowing down of the building

was caused by the violence of a gale of wind, and that therefore it was an act of God, and beyond the control of human agency, in support of which ho qnoted from Addlson on Torts. The Bench remarked tint along with the act of God thero appeared to be a good deal of human agency. The building, 'from the evidence, was in a dilapidated state for years, and had it been looked after, no doubt it would be still standing. They would give a verdict for plaintiff for £9, posts of court, and one guinea professional fee. (Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., H.M.) M'Alpine v. Grant.— Claim, £13 10s. Settled out of Court.

Gascoigne v. Cox. — Claim, ,55., for grazing a horse. Gs. Gd. was paid into Court, being price of summons and Is. 6d. for the damage done. Verdict for amount paid into court.

Harris v. Blnndell. — Claim, L3O, for damage done to curtain sections of land, the property of plaintiff, by defendant cutting a race through same. Mr. Gooday for plaintiff'; Mr. Copland for defendant. Defendant pleaded not iudebtcd, and what was done was done by the sanction and consent of the owner of the ground. In this case it appears that the ground in question, some time ago, was the property of Grainger Clark, and at the time of his insolvency he made all his estate and effects over to Mr. Peter M'Gill, this land being included. Afterwards the estate was sold to J. Clark by M'Gill, and Clark conveyed the property to Hairis, he (Harris) having paid L4O for same. Mr. Copland contended that there was no evidence to show Mr. M 'Gill's consent to the transaction in the conveyance to Jb. Harris. There was not a word about M'Gill having transferred his interests, and he maintained that such should have been mentioned in the deed. Here the learned coixnsel had a controversy about conveyancing. The Magistrate settled the matter by stating that he was not there as judge of who was the best conveyancer, and that they had better keep to the matter before the court, and allow the business of the court to be proceeded with. Mr. Harris, the plaintiff, testified to Blundell's having cut the race, and that during the construction of same he was warned not to do so. Mr. Gooday stated that he could go no further with his case, as a material witness was not present, viz., J. M. Clark, he being ill. Mr. Mouat testified to his having served the witness with a subpoena. Mr. Gooday said he had Dr. Halley in court to testify to Clark's inability to attend, but on turning round found that the doctor had left the court. Mr. Copland stated that the doctor was in court f»t his request, for the purpose of making an affidavit, and was surprised at the statement of his learned friend. Here another controversy took plh.ee, and the ire of both was beginning to rise, when his Worship interfered. The Magistrate remarked that he would not have the pleasure of hearing them long. He hoped that the gentleman who was to succeed him on the bench would be as long-s\iftVring as he was. It was a pity to see learned counsel so utterly regardless of the amenities which ought to be observed in all courts. Such uncalled for and unseemly exhibitions, whilst interfering with the time of the court, were no credit to the parties themselves. Dr. Halley, being found, gave evidence as to Clark's inability to attend, and the case was adjourned for one week.

Draper v. Forbes.— Claim, L 5 95., being amount of accountdueto Morgan, formerly in business in Waipori. Draper sued as trustee in the estate. Mr. M'Coy for plaintiff. Tn this case Forbes, about six years ago, was dealing with Morgan. He stated that he had paid the amount of his account to Morgan, and immediately aft( j r left Waipori. He had a receipt for the money, dated Bth February, 1866, but he had lost it during the floods which occurred at Waitahnna about four year* ago. Draper testified to his having called repeatedly for the account in 1867. Forbes and the wife told him that they had paid and got a receipt. That he had asked for the receipt, and that he would be satisfied if he saw it. They never showed the receipt. All the papers connected with Morgan's insolvency were produced, and a letter from the solicitor of the insolvent authorising him (Draper) to sue. The documents produced, however, were not sufficiently explicit as to Draper's appoiutment as trustee. The Magistrate said he would give his judgment on Monday. His Worship stated to Forbes that if he (the Magistrate) was satisfied as to the appointment of Draper as trustee, he would have to give judgment against him. If he could find any documents bearing on the case, he would receive them before giving judgment.