RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT ROXBURGH. '

Tuapeka Times, Volume VI, Issue 330, 14 February 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT ROXBURGH. '

Tuesday, 10th Febeuaky. (Before W. L. Simpson, Esq.,-R.M.) Brazil v. Weaver. — No appearance on cither 1 side. Case struck out. John Beighton v. T. Cornish, for illegal i detention of billiard table. Continuation o£ ! case adjourned from .13th January for ap- , jjearance of A, M'Pheraon,

Mr. "Wilson for plaintiff ; Mr. Mouat for defendant. Mr. Wilson staled that Beighton purchased a billiard table from A. M'Pherson, for which he held receipt j but Cornish refused to give up the same, ay.d M'Pliesson had marie over tho billiard table to Cornish to defeat distress warrant granted to one Hammond. Alexander M'Plierson deposed — I am a stock rider living at -Waipori. I sold a billiard table to Beighton, and gave him i receipt. (Receipt produced.) At the time I sold the table to him, I went with him to Cornish's, and told him I had sold the table to Beighton. Beighton also told him I had sold him the table. Cornish said he would not allow any one to touch tl;e table or take it away. I leased the Eoxburgh Ferry Hotel, with the table, to T. Cornish for five years, from 15th January, 1873. I sold the billiard table to Mr. Beighton subject to that lease. At this stage of the proceedings counsel for plaintiff applied for a non-suit, to afford time for further consideration. Non-suit accordingly granted, with costs of Court and professional costs, 215., to be paid by plaintiff. T. Featherstom v. Norton. — No appearance on either side. Denis Cfassey v. W. Honner and W. Cooper. — No appearance on either side. Case struck out. John Dunlay v. Briggs. — Claim, for £5 for damage done to fence aud crop ; defendant breaking down fence of paddock and putting his horse in same, Mr. Mouat for plaintiff. Defendant pleaded iiot indebted. Mr. Mouat opened the case by stating that defendant had taken possession and broken down the fence, turned his Worses therein, and caused damage to the amount above stated. John Duulay, sworn — I am a farmer residing at Eoxburgh. On Sunday night, the Ist of February, 'defendant asked me to let him turn Lis horses into my paddock.- I refused to allow him, upon which he pulled part of tbe fence down and turned his horses in. There are about IS or 20 acres in the psvldork, with part of a crop of oats on the ground. I told him I should take proceedings against him when he pulled the fence down aud turned his horses in. The fence is partly sod and partly stone. I had to cart four loads of stone to repair tho fenco. Hid horses were in the paddock all that night. I turned them out in the morning. They were in live i nights previously. 'I'he lire horses did damage to the'erop to the value ot £5. Briggs left the gap in tbe fence open. I saw him pull the fence down and put hi 3 hordes in the paddock. Cross-examined by defendant. — I have been in possession of bait" the ground about 5 or 6 years. I bought tho good will of the other half from a man two years ago. Tour horses have never, with my will, fed there before. You broke the, fence down. -It is a double £cnco. I hare a crop now in tbe ground, which wa^ sown on Friday la^t. Kg crop was sown when your horses were turned in, but part of the crop was on the ground, left for my own horses to eat. The other part ha A been carted away. Tbe crop was partly self-sown. You said your horses had as much right there as mine. I wanted my horses to eat that part of the crop left on the ground. I threw myself on the gate when yon wanted to put your horses in, and would not allow \ou to do so. — Briggs, sworn — I plared my horses in the paddock, thinking I had a right to do so. I l.old plaintiff that if he would not let me put them in through the gate I would pull the fence clown. Plaintiff had taken his crops away before I put my horses in. It would not take five minutes to repair the fence. He has ploughed the ground since then. By the Magistrate. 1 took ho one with me to estimate damage done. The only circumstance I thought gave me right to put my horses there was that I holi a miners' right, and that tlie whole of the paddock iv question is within 10 chains of the river. (Miners' right produced.) Mr. Mouat contended that defendant had shown no right, he having no license to depasture stock ; also, thai ttie land had been in undisturbed possession of tlte plaintiff for six years, appli. at ion having been made for the same during that time. His Worship said that as this was a^ case for some consideration, be would reserve judgment until next Court day, 10th March. Woodhouse v. Rigncy. — This case was adjourned from 13th January. Mr. Wilson for plaintiff. This was an application for the claim, the joint property of plaintiff and defendants, to be sold, consequent upon dissolution of the company, neither side being willing to purchase tho share of the other. Defendaut expressed his wiUiuguess to accept decree for sale some time after one month from this. Mr. Matthew Hay was accordingly appointed receiver and valuator to report valuation to Court, cost of same to come oat of claim, and sonic day to be appointed for the sale after 10th March. R. P. Cocker v. A. M'Pherson.— Claim for £16 10s. 6d. Mr. Mouat appeared for plaintifi. Defendant pleaded not indebted. R. P. Cocker, sworn, deposed— l am a ginger beermanufacturer. I served defendant with ginger beer in 1872, on dates shown in book. (Book produced.) Entries we?e made at time of sale. I sold and delivered same at different dates of entry. Never received auy payment tor two jears. I entered the goods in a small pocket-book, and entered them daily in the larger book ; also oil money received from defendant. He would pay me one or two pounds at a time, and put me off by promising to pay shortly. On 29th April he gave me £3, saying he would give a promissory note for remainder. About 24fch May, I saw him in Dunedin, and he told me he had had the money to pay, but £10 had been abstracted from his pocket while in the Theatre. There was an understanding about the old account, he promising to give me bill of sale or promissory no! c. The old account ran from 15th January to 20th May, 1872. Thenew account ran from October, 1872, to January, 1873. During the interval between the old and new accounts he paid ready, cash. I gave no receipt either for the old or nev account. I showed him both accounts when he was leaving the Eoxburgh Ferry Hotel. I asked him to give me an order on Mr. T. Cornish. Cross-examined by defendant. — I asked you to name a day when you would settle the old account. By the E.M. — I will swear that I never gave him receipts. A. M'Pherson, sworn — I do not owe the money. I have a book of his, and tho amounts shown in the account do T.ot agree. I tell the Court that I have paid the full amount. I have some re eipts of plaintiff's, and believe he has summoned on the wrong account. There was £4 10s. 6d. due in January. I do not know exactly what I owe him. There was an old account, but I closed that before I entered upon a new one. There is nothing in the old account at present owing. Ido not know what was got after January Ist IS7?. Ido not remember the dates I paid him. I should like to get a proper account before I pay. I admit a balance of £1< 10s. in his favor. I swear, to tho best of my belief, I do not owe £16. I ask for an adjournment to procure papers and books of mine, which, ! are at Waipori. i Mr. Mouat said te -would be -willing to take ' an adjournment if costs were, paid into Court. His "Worship said that as the defendant admits a balance in plaintiff's favor, if he pay £5 into Court, the case shall bo adjourned till next Court day to enable him to produce receipts; plaintiff to furnish him with a proper statement of accounts moanwhile. Adjourned until the 10th March.