RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ROXBURGH.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 339, 18 March 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ROXBURGH.

*" - Tuesday, 10th Maeoh. (Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., E.M., and J. D. Niven, Esq.; J.P.- ' , Cocker v. IfdcpJterson. — Claim of £16 ss. for goods supplied.- This case' had' b 1 c'en ad'- 1 journed from the ZOth February. ' ' Mr." Mduat for ' plaintiff j Mr. 1 Wilson for defendant. '",'"' Mr. Wilson read a telegram from defendant as follows : Cannot attend; Court ; attending case here.' Found oue : receipt of Cockers. Ask for' adjournment. ! Mr. Moiiat :' Plaintiff states that he has furnished' defendant with accounts the same as those the Court, that though he migE^ have found one receipt, he has no other to substantiate liis' statements". Defendant had asked for an, adjournment last month, which was granted to' him, and which should have allowed plenty of time for him to prepa.re defence. His,Worsliip thought it was a weakness of defendant'^ <io ask for adjournments, and he would, therefore proceed with the case. Mr..Mouatßtated,that' the whole of, the debts accrued were in the accounts placed before the Court. Judgment for plaintiff,, with professional' co.sts, and costs of Court. Execution stayed for ten days, ■ - , Beighton v. Lancaster. — Claim of £-2 lls., being balance of account. John Beighton, sworn, stated that the summons was taken in of gooJs purchased by defendant in connection with one Sandersou. .£4 15s. Id, was paid off the account by George Lancaster*- >■ Defendant procured the goods himself. Henever saw Sanderson* ■ By defendant: The goods were procured at your request, and were usually sent out by packers. ' You Lave often stated yxiur inability to meet the accouut, but never repudiated it. Cash transactions have passed between us. Ofi the 20th May, 1872, there was a purchase made in your and Sinton's name, and £10 16s. paLl on the 24th January, 1873. Sinton possibly paid tho account. Up to this. point, the question has never been raised as to jour liability. I never had any per- . sonal transaction with Sanderson. I would not have taken his order unless in connection with some responsible party. There was no .current account, and no further payment was made. George Lancaster, sworn, deposed — Of the account whicli I have had placed in my hand, Ido not owe Is. The goods were supplied by Beighton on Sanderson's account through a man" named" Grover, who now resides at Tuapeka;

By the Magistrate : Why did you then pay Beigliton ?

Defendant : The other man Sanderson was not fit to come in, so I paid as his partner. I was also squaring up with Sanderson at the time. The -account of £2 Us. was sent to Sanderson. . I have receipts of transactions between Beighton any myself. This balance was only mentioned ta me once. I paid £10 168. >I was then in connection with Sinton. Beighton would not give Sintou credit. The goods in the account^ which he now sues for, were, not of a class that I use. We used, the tacks'!' Sarijerson took possession of everything. • I dfc'nofc smoke. The tobacco, Holloway's pills und "ointment, two shirts, and boots were all made use -of by Sanderson. They wpuld 1 amount to about to £2 lls. I wish to infer that they ' were his private account. The £4'los.' was what I considered myself entitled" ia pay: ; ' • '• , By the plaintiff : ' You applied once to me in the street, when I was with Mr. F-erguson. I never satisfied you as to payment. I told . your storeman where to find- Sanderson^ and , distinctly Hiid I should not pay. By the Magistrate : ' Why did you pay more than half the account?' : ■*. Defendant i They were squarhig up at the time, and it came to my share to pay that amount. (Books' produced by Beighton.) Plaintiff : As the defendant has stated that the goods were ordered by Sanderson; I put ' in fetter froin'-him shewing he iiever did so. • His Worship said the letter could not'be received in evidence, unless 'proved to be in Sanderson's writing. < • ' > . , T Plaintiff continued : The' entries in those., books 'shew 'everything connected -with the account, I have* not had any other transae- , tion- with' Lancaster. ■ ' ■' . . ,j-;j Defendant : I should have paid Beighton , long ago if I. had had the goods, as I ; have had the means to do so ; but.l did not get-the , goods, arid I do nob intend to- pay. the accounfe - • , - i His Worship said it was pkin to the Bench, that defendant had received; credit on, account of Lajicaster; and Sanderson. Defendant' may lhave paid, his ., share of it, but that ha.4. iriotlring to- do with tlie tbird party or the 3ench. Judgment for plaintiff fox amount ' claimed, jyijfeh costs of 3 Court, r , In consequeace of a statement made- by the defendant that he did,not intend to pay, plaintiff applied for- a distress warrant " to be granted. But on defendant stating he had met with an aceideht which' "prevented him from working, and also that his claim was flooded out, his Worship gave him one month' topay.it m. Tuir^any. i?W.-r-Scttled out of Coui-t. Tubmari y. Featlierstone. — In this case the smnmpns was not served, Dvhlay t. 'Briggs. — This waa a- case reserved, for judgment, from 10th February. Mr.*Mbua^for plaintiff. . ■ ' ' His Worship stated that li* c had come to the conclusion that the miners' right carried no such right as defendant claims ki virtue of it; unless permitted by' the Governor himsolf. , That no prima facie case had been pretented to put the case beyond the jurisdiction ot the Court.. ' There had- been' damage done, but not to amount claimed by plaintiff. Plaintiff . went very short in giving evidence as to. the value of damage ; but damage is admitted ;to a certain extent by defendant. Judgment for plaintiff for 205., costs of Court and.professional costs. „ , ',' . Dunlay v. Briggs.— Claim of £20. Mr., Mouafc for plaintiff; Mr. Wilson, wbo-appeared for defendant, submitted that service of summons was not suißcient,, it havingonly been served on Saturday evening at , six o'clock — Sunday being dies non. , To. put any appealor notice of set-off, there must, be notice given 24 hours before hearing; Tjae defendant, copsequently^ eouM not by any chance avail himself of a set-off. The siunmona should have been .served on Friday. Mr.' J Mfquat submitted that the ''Sunday does count in the service of, a summons. As Regards ' notice of set-off that could not .be,

id given on Sunday. Sunday .counts except in of special casos. The Act says nothing of exm eluding Sundays. However, he wad perfectly •t- vntting to taico any ruUng tho' Bench might be give ■ & or- -Mr. yilfiOT submittel that he 'relied on, , that Bocjo^of tho. Act sfuting tl^t a notice it of eet-off mxH bo delivered 24, hours before td the heann^of^ caS e w M eh) . ofl( { tins case the def^cUiifc had- n^p'ohance to do. L 8 His Worship coxside^d that this view of , the case-.woiild neces^ at c adjournment, as 1 ,r wasnot apointfor^%^deci 8 ion; but, re1-, serving this point, the cayj might" proceed a Mr. .Wilson, for defen^f plffi-lst, c. AgeneraMenial; 3nd, a de^^f p \ in | iff . 8 :e Bt^tementb. »• . \ Mr. Mduat stated that plainti^ was "holder - of agricultural land made . over t 0 him by I M'Donald, in February, .1869, whfc, assigned s his interest to plaintiff for the sum\f £iq ' 1, He produced evidence of original applWioii s foivlease of " same land dated 2nd May, 1572, * a Seven years' lease, was granted to JoVn' ;. Dtfhlayirom 13th December, 1871. It waY ■. after application had been made that defen- > - dant camped on the ground, built a sod hut, brought his horses in, .about which we now t 6ay'nothing, only wishing to get rid of defendant, who'damages fences, &c., &c. But for 1 the silent acquiesence of- , the plaintiff, defendant' would have' been trespassing from the commencement of ,the lease. Upon a true construction of the case, the Court has power '," to deal with the matter. "John Dunlay, sworn, stated — I am a settler 1. in the Teviot district. I know, the defendant.' lam the lessee named in the lease. I remem- ( ber defendant coming on my ground, about . ' three years ago. It was about the commencement of summer, . Counsel for defendant objected to any evidence before date of lease. Plaintiff f Defendant was employed in packing withariotber. man. He built sod walls, and was living in' the place. He afterwards roofed in part. llt was about four or five months after he camo ho put sod rwalls up. I had mado application for the land and, marked it out, but it had not then been eur-' veyed. He bas been there ever 6inve, and' he makes no use of the land. • Mr. Wilson again objected to any evidence before the date of lease. He also objected that the deed of assignment was insufficiently stamped, as it required a ss. stamp. The property will come under the Gold Mining Act, , 6 Mr. Mofiat : The assignment of lease •(rillnot come under the Gt-uldfields Act. Mr. Wilson : I submit that the stamp is not properly cancelled. Mr, Mouat : I shall not press the documents ; all we have to show is that the land came down to 'us. I produce receipts of rent. Plaintiff — Defendant has continued to occupy the hut since the time of lease. (Plaintiff here pointed out the piece of land occupied 'by defendant on the plan.) His house occupies about 20ft. x 15ffc. The paddock is fenced all round. None of it is cultivated. He goes to and fi-o, bringing horses two or three times a week to harness them, and keeps them tlicre sometimes for an hour or two, sometimes gU night, grazing in ' the paddock. It is a natural g-rass paddock. I should pay the'annual value of deterioration is £§0. ' I would not take that and let a man do as 'he is doing. The fences are strong. The gates are thrown open and left so by defendant. The chief mischief is done in that way. I coulcl keep in anything if the entrance was kept closed. I claim the £20 for mischief done, not the actual value. Tho mischief waa caused through my horses getting out of the paddock and stray cattle getting in. I was a week away after my horses tb rough his leaving the- panels down. He is the only party who passes to and fro who would have any occasion to let down the panel. I gave Mr. Waugh and Mr Kirk leave to put their horses in the paddock. I quarrelled with defendant 7 months ago. When I fenced tlie paddock he asked me to leave the entrance open for a week or two. I did so. I never told him 1 should want payment. His house is about 70 or 80 yards from the road. He does not profess to use any of the land. He leaves his horses in sometimes an hour or two, and sometimes all night. It is 3 mouths since I sp6ke to him about taking legal proceedings. He did keep the entrance closed some time after that. I thought the man would have left before. I never claimed any rent, or gave him notice to pay. Briggs was on the ground at commencement. He told me he was going six months ago. He never disputed my claim. -Mr. Wilson — The evidence for one third of the time cannot be taken. There was practically no case at all. Defendant was there when plaintiff entered into legal possession of the ground. Plaintiff never claimed rent, or told him'he should claim it. It is only now he makes a largo claim. It has never been 1 proved that defendant is on any particular piece of ground." 'Plaintiff allovveJ him to remain by his permission. Until that permission was revoked, no claim for rent could be sustained. There was' no proof of actual leans in 'quo: Tho production of lease and - plans is not evidence of use of 'ground.Mr. Mouat — There is no 'proof of permission having been given by* plain t iff. Defendant was only suffered to be there without opposition* , .The defendant disputes the title, which title we nave clearly proved. Mr. Wilson— l 'deny that 'the plaintiff has proved that' defendant is on his ground. He has failed J to' connect the house with' the' ground lie has' leased. Mr. Mouat — The amount of damage is not asserted, because 6ur object is" to make the defendant clear' out. ' Mr.. Wilson — My instructions are to resist the claim. ' - '' , His Worship said he couldnot give judgment in the 'case on. its merits as : ' it stood at presents •. ' " ■ Mr. Wilson — My client will leave the land. Mr. Mouat — We withdraw the leiise, and' relyupon the evidence of possession. DefenclatrtrLtis been acting in bad faith. There was a complaint made of certain land he applied for a' residence. No notice was given ; no' notiies posted!' ' He is just going from one p'aW'of the ground to another. Ho thinks that he is very ' adroitly' going to make a greater nuisance than he has already been. Mr. Wibon — If. thp lease bo withdrawn, it is simply a question of possessor against possessor. ' \ ' Judgment reserved till next Court day. Beigliton v.. Cornish. — Claim for £4 18s.. rent of billiard table 14 weeks, at 7» per week. Mr. ; Mouat for defendant. Information was filed by- plaintiff asking leave ,to withdraw, notice having been given to defendant. Plaintiff stated that .the case, was withdrawn owing to absence 'of principal witness* who had not been subpoeneel in consequence of his having to^appear inanother case* H,& further added jthat the service of summons was faulty, it having bqen served within^ the 48. hours ; but immediately on receipt of 'telegram from the witnessihe.was relying on, ho.gaye- notice of withdrawal. Case -withdrawn.. .Plaiutiff to pay professional costs. ,