RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, Lawrence.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 253, 5 December 1872, Page 7

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, Lawrence.

(Before Vincent Pj-ke, Esq.. R.M., aud Alex. Stewart, M.0., J,P.) Monday, December 2. Whittet v. Mean. — Mr. Mouat for plaintiff ; Mr. Copland for defendant. The Resident Magistrate gave judgment in this case. In the course of his remarks His Worship said the original amount sued for, viz,, LSO, had been reduced to [ L2l Is. 6d. on admission of plaintiff for goods received. The question remaining to be decided then was the liability, if any, of Whittet in Robert' contract. [ His Worship said in this matter he had great difficulties to contend with, but he was assisted to a decision by a statement made by Mr. Morison, to the effect that j both the material and workmanship of plaintiff were faulty. Defendant had suffered a loss of L 25 by defects in kitchen wall erected by plaintiff. He considered if he allowed defendant one- fourth of the total, say L 5, for bad workmanship, he would be giving a fair decision. Judgment would therefore be for plaintiff for Ll6, and 255. costs of Court. - l I Hinde v. Bennett.— Claim of Judgment by default. M'Kimmie v. Leech.— Claim LI Ba. Id. No appearance of either party. M'Beath v. Leech. — Claim L 8 4a. 3d. I Judgment by default. Harris v. Finmorc — Struck oui. tPootten v. Morison. —Mr. M'Coy for plaintiff; Mr. Copland for defendant. Morison was summoned for having created a nuisance by tilling up section No. 23, his property, through which ran the natural water course of the Hospital Flat Creek, thus backing the water on the adjoining section, the property of S. Wootten. It appeared, from Woutteti's evidence, that some time since a large culvert was erected, the outlet to which was on his section ; whereas the old and original culvert on the natural bed of the creek conveyed the water through section No. 28, the property of Morison. This old culvert had been, some three or four months since, stopped, and Morison had filled up the section, thereby throwing the water back on his CplaintifTs) section, making it dangerous not only for his own children but those of others, as it was quite unprotected. If he wished to make use of his section he could not do so. In reply to Mr. Copland, plaintiff said he believed the Government tilled in the old culverts. Before they were filled in the water, unless during times of flood, never came on his section. He blamed the Government for erecting the large culvert where they did, but all he wanted was a get-away for the water. The Bench saked if plaintiff could inform them where the original water course was, to which plaintiff replied it was through Mr. Morison's section No. 23, and never through section No. 24. There never was a pool of water on his (plaintiff's,) section until lately. Mr. M'Coy said he did not think it necessary to estimate damages, as his client wished only to get rid of the nuisance. The Bench thought it entirely a question of right. Mr. Copland contended that there was not material before the Bench to enable them to decide the question. Mr. Wootten might easily have had an official map, to show whether he had been wronged. The Bench decided that there was not sufficient evidence before them. There was nothing to show whether it was the fault of the Government or Mr. Morison that the culvert was erected where it was, or that the old culverts were filled in. The case was a very important one. They would offer a non-suit. Mr. M'Coy wished the case postponed, but their Worships would not grant it. Non-suit accepted. An application by Mr. Copland for professional costs was refused.