RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 351, 29 April 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before E. H. Carew Esq.. R.M) Fbidat, 24th Apbil. Andrews v. Heritage. — This case, which "was in effect an application to force the defendant to give Up possession of some ground Occupied by him within the boundaries of the freehold, of the plaintiff, was resumed, having "bta adjourned to obtain the evidence of a -witness *tlnTere4rgill. '„ „e n Mr. Henderson for plaintiff; Mr, M'Coy tor defendant. . Mr. Henderson proved the title of tne ; and that Heritage had no license to vecupy from "the plaintiff; but had several timee received notice to leave. Mr. M'Coy said the case was of an unusual nature, «ndhe did not think the Resident Hacutrate had any jurisdiction to deal with STrto •action of the Act was a transcript ifom anEnglifh Act, and it was reasonable «**• «qgpOoe'4tat the clashing, of GoJdfield'a

legislation was not contemplated ; by that section his Worship had jurisdiction to interfere when persons occupied any tenement without license of any sort, and no further. The defendant had a business license in 1861, which he afterwards renewed until (as he the defendant said) the officer of the Court refused to renew it, as Lawrence was then formed into a Municipality. The right his client claimed was an incorporeal one in the nature of an easement. If the Crown sold the hind, it must be subject to that right. (Robertson v. Bludell.)

His Worship said that he would have been perhaps of the same opinion as Mr. M'Coy as to his jurisdiction if the defendant had kept up his license to the date of the Crown grant ; but he had not done this. His Worship also pointed out to counsel a Proclamation of 1869, withdrawing the area, inter alia, in dispute from occupation under the Goldfields Act.

Mr. M'Coy said that could only be done on compensation being given to those who had rights vested in them at the time ; and, as he was - instructed, his client had received no compensation.

The defendant in his evidence said that a piece' of ground on the Beaumont road had been allotted to him as compensation, but he refused to accept it. Mr. Henderson put in a deed by which defendant conveyed this piece of ground to Mr. Cradock. Judgment for plaintiff with costs of Court and professional costs one guinea. Lyons v. Simpson.— Claim of £15 for the detention of a horse valued at £15, and £20 damages for Its detention. Mr. M'Uoy for plaintiff, Mr. Copland for the defendant. Mr. Copland took the objection (on its being admitted that no demand had been made for the horse) that an action of detinue would not lie. His Worship said that the objection would be good provided the horse had been rightfully taken in the first instance by the defendant, not otherwise. Clinton Lyons coach proprietor Lawrence deposed — that, about the 23rd day of February last, he turned out the horse at the Round Hill, he had previously used the Btables of the defendant, but on that date he removed his horses. He did not authorise defendant to use the horse or deal with it in | any way. He turned the horse out for a [ spell and when he required it again he could not find it. It came to his knowledge that defendant had taken the horse to Waipori ! where he was employed on the Sludge I Channel. The defendant had ridden the ! horse in to day, its value when turned out { was about £12, its present value about £6. ! He had been at great expense in having horses J to take the place of this one, and in other ways, which he explained. Robert Craig had seen members of defendant's family riding the horse and sledging potatoes with it.

David Simson, the defendant, deposed that the plaintiff had used his stables ; and on turning out the horse told him to take care of it, and also gave him permission to use it. . He had taken it to Waipori for safety, not knowing where to find Lyons. He had not put the horse out of the way with a view of buying it cheaply.

Thomas Simpson, brother of the defendant, gave some evidence so unsatisfactory, in many respects, as to call for some severe remarks from his Worship.

Judgment for the plaintiff. The horse to be returned, or its value (£5) paid ; £11 damages ; costs of Court, 245.; one witness, 155.; and professional costs, £2 2s.