RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 332, 21 February 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) Tuesday, 17th February.

Police v. O'Leary. — There was no appearance. Sergeant Farrell deposed that the accused was drunk in Ross Place between 10 and 11 o'clock on the morning of the previous day. Accused had not previously been before the Court. Fined 205., or 2-1 hours imprisonment in Lawrence gaol. Police v. Lewis Jones. — The accused did not appear. J. C. Roberts stated that he was unwell. Constable Green deposed to arresting the accused, who was drunk in Ross Place on the morning of the previous day. He went quietly. Fined 20sl, or 24 hours imprisonment in Lawrence gaol. Toborn v. M'Rae. — Judment was delivered in this case by his Worship. " Damages, £3 75.; costs and expenses, £1 165.; and professional costs, 218.

Hill v. May. — This was an action to recover £10, the price of a watch. Mr. M'Coy for plaintiff; Mr. Mouat for the defendant. The evidence of the parties was taken, and though in some respects conflicting, it appeared that the defendant purchased the watch for the amount named from the plaintiff, though there was some difference as to whether it was an absolute sale, or taken on trial merely. The Court; adopted the former view, and gave judgment for the plaintiff for £10, and 15s. costs. Vy TJie B eaum °nt and Tuapeka Water Race C*nipamj (Registered) v. R. Williams.— A ™V" of £7 10s., being three calls due. Mr. M O iy for plaintiff ; Mr. Mouat for defendant. Xr- Mouat took preliminary objection that of ! thVthtee calls sued for, two were not more than fourteen days due, and therefore could not be recovered ; and further, that the first call sued for being more than twenty-one day s overdue, a forfeiture was evoked. He quoted Stoeken's case -and other English authorities; and also referred to sections 3l, ?!^ d iw- Al Min ™g Companies Act 1872 to establish the position thatas proceedings had not been -commenced to recover the first, call within fourteen days, the right to sue was gone, and a forfeiture having been* bo liability could-attach-to -the defen

dant in respect of calls afterwards. In reply, Mr. M'Coy contended that, as the Act only -allowed calls to be made once a month, and gave power to sue for any number of calls in the same proceeding, that the right to sue was n~t limited to fourteen days, though their might be some limitation as to the manner of sueing ; and, as to iorfeiture, the Company might waive that. Everyone, while registered as a shareholder, was liable by the 13th section, and could only free himself by payment of calls as enacted* in 31st section. The case was adjourned to Tuesday next, when the merits of the case will be entered into, if the preliminary objections are not sustained. Corry v. Leslie. — This was a claim for half the value of a boundary fence between sections 45 and 8, block V., Waitahuna East, namely, £14 Is. 6d. . Mr. Copland for the defendant. This case was adjourned for some hours to admit of a settlement ; but as the parties were unable to agree, the case was gone on with. The plaintiff deposed that he gave defendant a notice to fence prepared by himself. As defendant said he was not then in a position to do so, a new agreement for a cross fence was entered into, which might do for a time ; the fence sued for was not finished. Mr' M'Coy was here instructed by the defendant, and asked that the plaintiff should be non-suited, as the notice was not in compliance with the Fencing Ordinance. The fence was not finished ; and it had not been shown that a month had elapsed between the demand for payment and suing. His Worship said the matter would not stand if the Ordinance was only relied on ; but under the agreement, a right of action ir.ignt have aiisen for work done and materials supplied, or for damages for a breach of contract. Mr* Copland said that he was entitled to any advantage, whether arising faoni the Ordinance or tho common law. Mr. M'Coy urged that tho agreement was bad, as no request was proved, nor consideration, nor was the fourth section of the State Frauds complied with, which required contracts concerning land to be in writing. After some argument, his Worship nonsuited the plaintiff with 21s. professional costs. His Worship jobserved that it would be well for those who wished to take advantage of the provisions of the Fencing Ordinance to get professional assistance in preparing notices, &c. ; as otherwise, litigation very frequently arose. M'Beath v. Donaldson. — Mr. Mouat for the plaintiff ; Mr. M'Coy for the defendantClaim of £-10, for damages caused by cattle of defendant trespassing in the garden of the plaintiff. The trespass and damage haying-been proved, it was attempted for the defence .to show that a surveyed road ran through the place fenced in as r garden ; and that the cattle were on tens road as they lawfully might be when the damage occurred. Mr. Mouat stated that he would be content with £2 ; this b«iug assented to, a judgment wairgiven for the plaintiff for £2 j costs, 14s ; and professional costs, 21s.