(Before Vincent Pyke, Esq., R.M.) Monday, 29th July.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 235, 1 August 1872, Page 7

(Before Vincent Pyke, Esq., R.M.) Monday, 29th July.

Fitzgerald v. Duncan. — Claim for L 22 15s. Judgment for amount claimed, with costs.

Sutherland <& Poison v. Livingston. — This was a claim for LlO for trespass. Mr. Copland for plaintiffs ; Mr. Mouat for defendant The alleged trespass consisted in defendant turning on the Bth May a number of sheep on certain land, the lease of which had been purchased by plaintiffs. The act of turning the sheep on the land was admitted ; but defendant claimed that on the day of the alleged trespass the land was his property. Mr. Monat took exception to the jurisdiction of the Court, as a question of title was involved. Mr. Copland having replied, Mr. Pyke decided to hear the evidence. Plaintiffs had been served with notice to produce the transfer of the lease from Livingston to them, but had not done so, as it was in the Superintendent's office, Dunudin. Mr. Poison stated that he purchased the land by auction on the 26th A pril, from Tan ton. He paid Livingston, who held the deeds, as security for Ll5O, that amount, and got the deeds from him, and, with the permission of Livingston and Tauton entered immediately into possession. Owing to Livingston being away, the transfer of the lease was not signed till the 13th May. The amount claimed would not cover the damages sustained. Mr. Mouat wished to cross-examine the witness as to the date of the Superintendent's sanction to the transfer of th© lease, but the Court held that as notica to produce the document itself had not been served upon the proper parties, counsel could not ask questions relative to it.

Defendant said that until the 13th May, although he had been paid the amount owing to him, he considered the laud his, as he had not signed a transfer. He believed he authorised Mr. Gooday to hand over the papers relating to the land. He had never occupied the land before he put on the sheep on the Bth May.^ He had never given plaintiffs permission to enter the land.

Mr. Mouat contended that until the Superintendent agreed to the assignment of the lease, Livingston was the owner of the land. He was responsible till tie transfer for the rent, and for the fulfilment of the conditions of the lease.

Mr. Copland in reply, argued that dafendant's possession <>f the land ceased on his receiving the Ll5O. The fI."M. said that whoever was in possession of the land, 'it was clear defendant was not, and was not justified in turning his sheep upon it. Judgment for plaintiff for L 5 and los costß of Court. Professional costs were not given, as through the absence of plaintiffs when the case was called upon last Monday, defendant had been put to expense. Mr. Mouat applied that the amount of damages should be increased, to give him an opportunity to appeal. As Mr. Copland objected, Mr. Pyke declined to grant the application.