THE COURTS. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 239, 29 August 1872, Page 5

THE COURTS. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. LAWRENCE.

(Before Vincent Pyke, Fisq., R M., and Horace Bastings, Esq., J.P.) Monday, August 26.

An inebriate was mulcted in the usual penalty.

Grundy v. Ryan. — Defendant was charged by the Depasturing Inspector with allowing an entire over six months old to run on the goldfields commonage. Mr. Grundy deposed that on the 2nd August he found an entire on the commonage, which defendant admitted was his property. Defendant stated that he kept the entire in a paddock, but during the snow it broke away. There were many other entires running on the goldfields, and the entire in question was a " scrubber," which he had sold for L 6 in order to get rid of it. The R.M. stated that the defence simply amounted to that defendant was not the only person who was breaking the law, and the fact of the animal being a " scrubber " only aggravated the offence. The law was intended to prevent "scrubbers" running at large on commonages ; and he trusted, if other persons were breaking the law. they would be brought up within a very brief period. The fine in this instance would would be L 2, with costs, 17s.

Thomas Bell appeared to answer an information laid against him by William Kemp, for damaging property. Complainant stated that the matter had been arranged, and the information was withdrawn.

Holmes (Town Clerk) v. Gascoigne. — Claim 12s. 6d. rates. In this case judgment had been deferred. The R.M. now gave judgment as follows :— Although the amount sued for in this case was but trifling, the principle involved is important. It raises the question of liability for municipal rates, upon which I never had any doubt. The law and usage in {his matter which prevails in England, in Australia, and I think in every country where municipal institutions prevail, is that whoever is in possession or occupation of the property, is the person directly liable to the corporation for all rates thereon. It matters not who was tenant nor who was owner at the time when the rate was struck. Here the maxim of caveat emptor appliei. The incoming tenant or purchaser must protect himself by making proper enquiries, otherwise he incurs the risk of being distrained upon for all arrears ; for these rates are not personal taxes, but burdens or charges upon the land or property, aa the case may be. I only adjourned this case, therefore, to see if the Ordinance of 1865 in any way departed from this general custom of the law, and I find it does not do so. The 88th section is clear on that point. The " tenant in possession," if there be a tenant ; and if there be not, then the "owner in possession" is primarily liable for the rates. Judgment ment for defendant.

Holmes v. Field. — Claim for rates. Adjourned for a week to allow of summons being returned.

Cowap v. Heaps. — Mr. M'Coy appeared for plaintiff. Adjourned for a week.

Rynn v. Leslie. — Claim for L3O for damages sustained to two mares though defendant allowing an entire to be at large ; for damages done to fence, and injuries inflicted on plaintiff's son by the animal. Mr. M'Coy appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Copland for defendant. Plaintiff and a settler named George Leslie deposed to the action of the entirp, and the amount of damages occasioned to the mares and to the fence thereby. Plaintiff' 3 son deposed to having been chased and knocked off a mare he was riding by the entire, and Dr. Halley testified to the injuries sustained by the boy. For the defence, Mr. Copland called Thomas Miller, who flatly contradicted tho evidence of plaintiff and Leslie. Defendant said that plaintiff had offered to compromise the matter for Ll7, but upon hearing the statements of several parties, he had declined to do so. Mr. M'Coy said that a most extraordinary statement had been made by the witness George Leslie, to the effect that defendant had offered to bribe him to swear falsely. The Bench remarked that what Mr. M'Coy had stated had nothing to do with the case ; but if it were correct, a most serious charge would lie against defendant. The defendant, on being asked by Mr. M'Coy, denied that he had made any such offer. The Bench reserved judgment till another case between the parties had been heard.

Leslie v. Ryan. — This waa a claim for Ll3 for trespass. Mr. Copland appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. M'Coy for defendant. Plaintiff stated that on the 27th instant he found twenty-four head of cattle and two horses trespassing on his land, section 3, block VI., Waitahuna East. Received a certificate for same in January, 1872. It was unfenced and unimproved, and there was only natural grass upon it. The cattle were on the land half an hour. Defendant said that about one o'clock on the day in question plaintiff drove up twenty-six head of cattle to his farm, and said he would sue him for trespass. Asked him to stop till he (defendant) picked out his cattle. Plaintiff refused to do so, and went away immediately. Only five head of cattle and the two horses belonged to him (defendant) ; the remainder belonged to Leslie, Sutherland, M'Corkmdale, and Curry. He believed plaintiff took the cattle from outside his (defendant's) fence, as he saw them there two hours previously,, aud it wus impossible for them to have gone to plaintiff's laud and been driven back by one o'clock. Plaintiff had stated that if he (defendant) did n<*t take L 5 to settle the other case, he would drire his cattle off the commonage on to his (defendant's) land, and then sue for trespass. George Lealie corroborated defea-

dant's evidence, and stated that defendant had offered him the service of his entire if he would swear in the previous case that Ryan facilitated the service of the mares for which he claimed damages. The Bench retired, and i»h com"ng into curt again, in thecaseof Ryanv v. Leslie gave judgmentforplaintifffor L2O, costsof court, LI 155., and professional fee. In giving judgment in the case of Leslie v. Ryan, the R.M. stated that under the Regulations of 1871, one of the conditions under whicfi an agricultural lease wa.s granted was thafc the land should be securely fenced. This was intended to prevent leases being turned into cattle traps. No doubt this would net interfere wi h the right under common law of leaseholders to bringing actions for trespass. When such a case was brought before the court, however, but little damages would be given. The present case had not been substantiated in such a manner as to justify judgment being given for plaintiff, and it would be dismissed. The court then adjourned till 2 o'clock. On resuming. Mr. Pyke was the only magistrate present. Kum Yoon Cheong v. Ah Len Sue. — Claim for L 3 6s. 3d. Defendant did not appear, and judgment was given for the amount claimed, 9s. coata^ of court, and L 2 costs of witnesses. Mr. Mouat appeared for plaintiff.

Miller v. Christenson; Miller v. Favel. — These cases were heard at Waitahuna, and judgment was deferred. The Magistrate now gave judgment for the plaintiff in each case for L 3 and costs.