RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 249, 7 November 1872, Page 7

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Thursday, October 31. (Before Vincent Pyke Esq., R.M , and Alexander Stewart Esq , J.P.) Robert Henry Pierpoint, was brought up, charged with stealing a suit of clothes the property of Joseph. Samuel, from Wain's Hotel Dnnedin. Accused was remanded to Dune Jia. . The application of James Wright, for a slaughtering license, was granted. Monday, November 4. (Before Vincent Pyke E^q , R.M., and Edward Herbert Esq., J.P. James Sinclair for being drunk and disorderly in Peel-street, on Sunday, was fined 10s, with the option of 4 days hard labor. Julia Driscoll, ~ Timothy Driscoll, and Catherine Driscoll, were brought up on remand, the 6n»t named for obtaining goods under false pretences, and the ,two latter for receiving stolen goods. On the application of the police accused were further remanded till Thursday, their bail beinsj enlarged. M'Lean v. M l Kay. This was a claim or £5 for trespass on Bellamy run. Mr. Mouat appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. M'Coy for defendant. Mr M'Coy took a preliminary objection that a runholder could not sue for trespass, as the Impounding Ordinance provided a remedy for trespassing on a run by impounding. Mr Mouat maintained that the statutory law only regulated the rights C( nferred by common law, and that it was perfectly competent to bring such an action. He also contended in case the point should be raised by Mr M'Ooy, that the Resident Magistrate's Court was the proper place to bring such an action. Mr M'Uoy said he did not intend to take exception to the jurisdiction of the Court. The Resident Magistrate said that previous to the passing of the GoldfieMs Act, the only remedy a runholder had in case of trespass, was to impound, and the loth clause was intended to provide a simpler remedy, lie would certainly say the action was one that could be|brought, but he would not at that time say, whether it could be' brought in the Resident Magistrate's or Warden's Court. Mr Mouat, in order to try the case under the 15th clause, asked that the name of Alexander M'Lean, the- issue of Bellamy Run, should bo substituted for that of Lachlan M'Lean. This amendment having been made, Mr. Mouat said the action was brought merely to try a right, and that vindictive damages were not claimed. Certain parties had bee» in- the habit of making the Bellamy l.nu a camping ground, under the impression that they had some right to do so, and it was to disabuse their minds of this impression, that the action was instituted. He called,

Lachlan M'Laan, manager of Bellamy Station, who stated that he saw defenfendant drive hia team of bullocks on the run, on the 12^h and 15th iaat. fie had frequently seen him drive his fcidlocks on the run, and on previous oooatsion* had threaten© I to impound hhero. CrosH-ejuunined — Had unj*»im*Rjd the cabtle on a Monday, Tfc was nut the day thfey s trespassed. By the,Bcnch^-Tho trespass took place

after the impounding. Th>maa Dwyer, stockman, Bellamy Station, Baid that he yaw defendants, after they brought the cattle from tho pound, unyoke opposite the door of the> home station. Tim was on Saturday, and the cattle remained till Mond ly. F<>r the defence. Mr. M'Cuy called John M'Kay, bullock m driver, who stated that his bullocks were impounded ou the 12th October. He paid the pound fees (receipt produced) and released them. He had no iilrt-ruative but to camp where he did on Saturday night. He camped on a public road. He did not travel on Sunday, but started on Monday morning. At that time tha bullocks were qnite close to the road. This closed the defence. The Bench reserved their decision till after hearing tho next case. M'Lean v. Williams. — This, a precisely similar case to the last case, and the evidence given exactly tlie same. In giving judgment, the Resident Magistrate said that bullock drivers in travelling through runs in pursuit of their vocation, were entitled to remain a certain time for rest. If it wero otherwise, bullock teams could not travel i.n the country. ' He considered the de • fondants in camping opposite the homestead, committed an act of unnecessary bravado. Ho nskoil if plaintiff would accept a nonsuit.

Mr. Mouat said he would. The plaintiff was then in each' case non-suited, without costs.

Roberts v. Hears. — This was a claim of £o 15s. Mr. Mouat appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Copland for defendant. The case was adjourned by consent for a week.

Oudaille v. Gibbs. — Mr. Copland appeared for plaintiff. In this case neither party appeared, and the summons had not been returned. The Resident Magistrate said that for the future that when the summons not being returned was tho plaintiff's fault, the plaintiff would have to take out a fresh summons. *