R.M COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 3124, 8 February 1889, Page 2

R.M COURT.

V ■ : ■(Before S.' you. Sturmev, 8,M,) ; -i ; :■' -: ATTEMPTED / ■'•■'■['■''■ ■' Henry Mills, alaboring iiian, about 45 years of 'age, was charged with attempting to, committ suidide ,by cutting his throat '"at Eketahuna'on the night of Wednesday, February 1 6th, Accused was remanded" to Wellington for a week for medical treatment.'.. -.-'.' : ''.':'. '.. BIIEAOH OF THE WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

Constable Salmon v 6, ; Heron! Sergeant Price intimated'to the Court that the weighing machine haviug been ropaired to. the satisfaction of the 1 Inspector, the charge, by permission of the Court would bo withdrawn. Agreed to.. : ■ J ■

..... TRESPASS AND DAJIAGE. His Worship gave judgment in the case Brown v Elkins,' Claim Lift damage for injury to crop by pigs, In this case the land in question'being insufficiently course, unfericed within the'meaning'of ; the statute. Section 6 of the Impounding Act, 1884, therefore does not apply. Now Section.s, so far ; as,'regards unfouced land, takes away any general right to damages .which:might have existed at common law, and leaves only in force the right.given by. section 14. Turning to tliat section we find that its effect is limited, and that it-gives the occupier a' right to recover ;-" tresspass" rates at thorate specified in the first schedule" but it gives nothing more.. In the opinion of the Court.this must be taken to mean that there is under that section no general right to damage, but only a right to recover trespass rates, the animals (cattle) having been firstimpounded, Sections G and 18 both help to show, that this is the true meaning .of section 14. Section 6 shows that the Legislature makes a clear distinction of the right to recover damages generally and the • right to proceed by way of impounding to recover tresspass rates, Section 13, is still more in point. It applies to a case (like the present) where no impounding has. taken place, and it will be observed that it gives the occupier ■ a right to recover, not trespass rates, but " the amount ol any trespass'rates that would be : payable under the Ist schedule," if the cattle were impounded. | If, therefore, Section 14 had been

intended to give a general right to recover damages,' apart from impounding, analagous words would have been used to- those found in Section 13, In other words, under Section 18, the trespass rates are referred to merely as a " measure of damage" in au ordinary action, while under Section 14, they are to he recovered as trespass rates," and not as damages. The wording of'Appendix'A observes the same distinction, and prescribes that the occupier may impound the animals, and claim j trespass rates, or he may claim damages without impounding, but this only applies to Nelson, Mailborough, and Westland. In the case before the Court, the plaintiff had not pursued the remedy, oi impounding, but had sued for "such damages as would have been recoverable had

the animals beenj impounded," His general right to such damages is taken away by section I, He does not come within Section 18; and Section 14 in the opinion of the Court, only applies where the trespass rates are recovered in the manner prescribed by the Act, I would refer to an English case, that 4 Child y. Heanij Addison on Torts p. 129. The plaintiff must therefore be nonsuited, but as he has suffered some small loss through the pigs being on the land in his occupation, I think this is a case where I may justly disallow costs.