RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 415, 9 December 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LA WRENCE.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M. ) JFriday, 4th September. * Cox v. Birkenshaw and Cox v. Ilalverston. — Summonses not served. Cox v. Dall.— Judgment by default for the amount claimed, 17a., and costs of Court. Byan v. Cowan. — Claim of £20, for wrongfully burning a fence of the plaintiffs. Mr. M'Coy for plaintiff; Mr. Copland for defendant. Mr, Copland said that this case would not lie, as the offence charged was a criminal one. His Worship said that as malice was not alleged, the action would lie. It appeared that Cowan had a right of access to some paddocks of his through some ground fenced in by Ryan, who had, however, made gaps in his fence where the roadline appeared on the maps to pass through, aa soon as Cowan had taken up the land on the other side. This gap was usually stopped up hy a. dray or some such obstacle, which was removed when Cowan was seen coming. On the date mentioned in the summons, Cowan, who was not on good terms with Ryan, set fire to a lot of dead furze lyiug about or near the gap, as he thought it would annoy a young foal he was taking through. This fire spread and injured the fence, according to Ryan's account to a considerable extent. Mr. Corry, a witness for the defendant, estimated the damageat£lonly, but he admitted in cross-examination that he was not on speaking terms with Ryan. His WorsKipgave judgment for £5, cosss of Court, and professional costs. Mark v. Besi^— Claim^f £50, for money due in respect of a transfer of a one-sixteenth share in the Gabriels Gully Quartz Mining Company (Registered.) Mr. M'Coy for plaintiff; Mr. Copland for defendant. It appeared from the plaintiffs case that a share in j the Company was transferred from Marks to Best for £150 cash (this was, however, a mistake, and the summons was amended on paying one guinea costs to £250), and £50 to be paid out of the first dividends amounting to that sum, and £50 at a future date. The £250 had been paid, and a dividend paid to the defendant in respect of the share, amounting to more than£so. After the date of the transfer, and before the dividend, the debts of the Company were paid by the shareholders out of their own pockets ; and it was understood and resolved that this should not stand as a debt against the Company. The question at issue, or one of them is, whether the dividend declared was a proper one. At the close of the plaintiff's case, owing to the amendment before mentioned, the case wa3 adjourned to Monday week. On Saturday, an enquiry was held in the gaol, before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M., a charge having been laid against Margaret Stephenson for stealing goods from Francis Oudaiile of the value of over £50. Mr. M'Coy appeared for the prisoner. The goods alleged to have been stolen were from the drapery store of Mr. Oudaille, and were of a very miscellaneous kind. T^e accused, who reserved her defence, was committed for trial at the next sittings of the Supreme Court at Lawrence. ■