RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 232, 11 July 1872, Page 7

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before Vincent Pyke, .Esq., R.M.) Thursday, 4th July. Duwucs v. Munro. — Claim fo.r erecting a fence. The plaintiff stated that the fence was measured by plaintiff and defendant, and no fault found with it, and there was no agreement about the height. Cross-examined by defendant. — The fence was to have been made similar to a continuation of same fence. By the Bench. — The fence was not four feet. Defendant said the fence was a boundary fence between his and Docherty's land : and was to be similar to the portion built by Docherty . The fence erected by plaintiff w;,s inferior in- construction, and six inches narrower at the base than Docherty '* 'fencij. It wa3 not worth 53. per chain. Never said he would take the fence of pldntiff's hands. By the Bench.- - Objected to the fence at the time of measurement as not being in accordinc » with agreement. The Bench remarked that it was extraordinary that neither produced witnesses, so that a judgment might be arrived at. Judgment for 10s. per chain and costs of Court. Louden v. Wilson and Drapper. — This was an action for £10, for damages done the plaintiff's oats and turnips by sheep, the property of" Drapper, which wore depastured on Wilson's land. Mr. Mouat appeared for plaintiff. A. Louden deponed that he saw fl teh of sheep on Wilson's land, which were afterwards on his (plaintiff's) ground. Had 10 acres of self-sown oats, which he did not intend to plough, and half an acre of turnips. During tlie snow the sheep were"* always on his (plaintiffs) land. On the 10th June, gwe Drappar notice to take them off. Did not know the connection between Drapper and Wilson. Drapper took some of the sheep away. The turnips were worth L 5 or L 6 ; damage done to the oats, L 5. I>y the Bench. — The land is leasohold. Crossexamined by Drapper. — His (plaintiff's) land is not fenced. Wilson gave him notice to fence. Saw sheep eat the turnips. Nothing was wrong with them when the sheep in questiou entered. Anticipated a good crop without ploughing. By the Bench.— Counted over 79 sheep on his land at the time in question. Donald M' Alpine said he examined the turnips, and found tUem all eaten and sto .pod out by sheep. Saw the sheep on turnips. ' The turnips were ri<4ht before the sheep visited them. Would estimate the quantity at 3| tons ; and the price is at present 3s. 6d. pet- cwt. ; delivery would cost about ss. per ton. The portion left 13 valueless. Cross- examined by Drapper. — Could see a green crop before the sheep visited there ; but' afterwards nothing could be seen. By the Bench. — The cost of digging, &c, would be ss. ; delivery, ss. per ton.

For the defence, Mr. Downes deposed that he planted turnips at same time as Louden, which turned out comparatively valueless, and had turned hij cattle on them. Saw Loudens cows ia Londen's own ground, amongst his turnips, horse 3 and pigs besides. Turnip digging is os. ; and cartage to Lawrence, about ss. 1-KuviK"?, jnr. , saw Loudens cows, pigs, and houses amongst his turnips before visited by sheep. Cross-examined by Mr. Mouat. — The cows w ent in through gaps in fe:ic«. There are no gaps in Wilson's fence. Th'-s Wilson said he passed plaintiff's ground frequently. The crop was inferior on account of the dry weather. Witness wont over the ground that morning. In siin-jof tiie drills he found that turnips h.id never put in an appearance. Had spoken to plaintiff repeatedly about fencing, but lie seemed unwilling to do so. Witness could not estimate the damage — .t was so trifling. Hi? Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for L 2 aud costs of Court.

(Before Vincent Pyke, Esq., R.M., and llora2o Bastings, JEsq., J.P.) Monday, Bth July. Oiilnille v. Campbell. — Adjourned for 14 days. Mr. Copland appeared -for defendant. fiutt >n v. Whitlct. — Claim £5, for il.i'nme done to garden by fowls. Adjourned till Thursday at the request ol defendant. Ah Sen v. Campbell. — (Jlaim £5, for damage sustained through detention of !n»r?e. Mr. M'Coy appeared for plaintiff ; Mr. Mon-it for defendant. Plaintiff said that his horse was in the habit of going into the enclosed paddock of defendant. 'Jn one occasion he ga\*o defendant 2lb. of tea for tiie danui^o done ; on iin&fchei; occasion he paid him 6s. On Monday iveek the horse" went to the paddock; and • lie saw defendant enticing the horse into the paddock by some hay. lle (defendant) usintrht the horse, and refused to deliver him unless LI was paid. The horse was subsequently sent to the pound. Defendant's version was that the horse ctfuld not be kept out of his paddock. That the animal did great damage to his grass. That on the morning in question tho horse was in Iris j«i idock ; and he (defei - d,mt) drove him down to the yard tor the purpose of catching him. lie caught th^ horse, tied him to a cart, and afterwards sent him to the pound. He never entie<jti die li'irsc within his fence. William SulKy n c trrobraled the defendant's stat - ment in every particular. On cro-^s-examination, defendant stilted that his own ground was only enclosed on thi«3e sides — there being no division bei/.veep his and Treloar and Darton's land — but the horse could not possibly get into his paddock without jumping the outward fence, Avbich completely surrounded all three farms. Mr. M'Coy conteuded that, as defendant's ground was not completely fenced, he had no right to impound, arc! that the fences were evidently in bad order, as the horse ia question was only a hack, and could not be expected to be a jumper. The Hench, in giving judgment, stated that, as the whole of the properties involved were surrounded with a fence, iho want of a dividing fence was unimportant ; and as to the condition of the fence, it vrta the duty of the plaintiff to prove that it was not in good condition. Case dismissed ; plaintiff to pay jos'.s of Court and 2 Is. professional fee.