THE COURTS. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 248, 31 October 1872, Page 7

THE COURTS. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before Vincent Pyke, Esq., R.M., and Horace Bastings, Esq., J.P.) Monday, October 28.

Julia Driscoll, a girl of about 11 years of age, was brought up on three charges of obtaining goods under false pretences, md Timothy and Catherine Driscoll, her parents, were charged with receiving stolen property. Inspector Thompson prosecuted, and Mr. Copland appeared for -the defence. On the application of Mr. Copland, the accused were remanded fqp a week, in order to allow him time to get up his defence. The accused' were liberated •on Timothy Driscoll's recognizances.

Campbell v. Treloar. — This was a claim for trespass which had been partly heard at a previous sitting of the Court. Mr. Mouat appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. M'Coy for defendant. Two witnesses and defendant .himself gave evidence. Judgment was given for 20s. and costs of court.

Fraser v. M'Bae and Others. — This was a claim of L2O for illegally impounding cattle, and for worrying cattle with dogs. Mr. Mouat "for plaintiff ; Mr. Copland fur defendants. Plaintiff stated that on the 14th October last, some of his cattle got into a wheat field belonging to defendant which was only partially enclosed. He drove them out, and' shortly afturwards he saw one of the defendants drive the cattle into a stockyard, and afterwards drive them towards the pound. On the following morning he went to the pound and fcund his cattle there, and had lo pay LI Is. Bd. to release them. The cattle were impounded in the name of Donald M'Rae. Defendants were trying to keep cattle off the land, and two "or three times every day used to go Up With dogs and drive away any cattle that came near it. Reing driven off by dogs, he considered, injured his cattle, as it lowered their condition. A witness named Blair said there was about. 20 chains of the fence uncompleted. This concluded the plaintiff's case.

Mr. Copland entered into a lengthy argument as to the power of impounding. He maintained that the common law of England gave the owner of any land, though unenclosed, the p6wer of impounding, and was about to quote authorities in supportof his position, when

The Resident Magistrate said the question was not one of common law, but of statute law. In his opinion the holder of land, not enclosed by a sufficient fence, had not the power to impound.

Mr. Copland said the common law was superior to any New Zealand ordinance. If it were otherwise, "all his years of study were thrown away. He would be very glad to have this question argued in ths Supreme Court, and he would take the first opportunity that presented itself of doing so.

The Resident Magistrate said he would be most happy to assist Mr. Copland by stating a case for the Supreme Court.

Mr. Copland again proceeded to argue that the common law conferred on owners of land a right to impound, which no colonial statute could take away.

The Resident Magistrate said that until over ruled by -a higher court, the ruling of his Court would be that the holder of an unenclosed piece ' of land could not impound! cattla trespassing on that land, but must seek his remedy svt common law by bringing an action for trespass. He might point out that the Impounding Ordinance gave a man whose land had been trespassed upon the power of righting himself for the damage done — in fact, constituted him judge of his own case. But it gave him this power only under very stringent conditions, and if his laud were not sufficiently .fenced, he could not exercise it. The holder of unenclosed or insufficiently fencea land, .could only recover damages for trespass by coming to the Court.

* Mr. Copland said in the face of the strong expression of opinion by theBench, it was useless for him to proceed with his case. He though it was hard, however," to liis clients, that he could not alter the stereotyped- opinion of the Goldfields Magistrates, as it was contrary to law. He called

Donald M'Rae, who -stated that on the, 14th'and 35th of October, Fraser's' cattle came into the wheatfield, but he could not say the damage they did. They were always troubled with cattle. In cross-exami-nation, witness stated that at the time of the impounding, there were two dogs on tl\p "farm, which were occasionally sent after cattle.

In giving judgment, the Resident Magistrate said defendant had evidently acted in ignorance of the law^ aud as this was the 'first case of the kind that had come before tho Court, heavy damages would not be awarded. Judgment for .plaintiff for £3 ; costs of Court,, 27a. ; and professional fee, 21s.

Oudailh v. Fiddell— Claim for £10193. fosfend.tut admitted his liability. Judgmelft'fo* pliiiitiff with costs and profeo. Mr. <Joplaud appeared for plaintiff

Drape? v. 'Orun^y.-^Claim for £4 for service o.f entire. Plaintiff stated that he entered into a verbal agreement with defendant for the reqnired service, which had been performed. Defendant denied point blank having made any agreement. Judgment for plaintiff for £3 103, and coats, 9i.