DISTRICT COURT

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 3164, 27 March 1889, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT

MASTERTON.—WEDNESDAY,

MABOH 27th,

(Before Distriot Judge H. W. Robin' • eon),

Bankrupicy. • J Orders for discharge were made iu the following unopposed estates-E, H. Elliotte, Fabian Bros." Mr Pownail for debtors. (The bankruptcy solicitor was allowed costs in Fabian's estate to be taxed by the Registrar of the Court at the discretion oi the Assignee). • Wm. Witton,—Mr Middleton, for debtor.

The remainder of'the casts were ordered to stand over until to-morrow morning.' :

OIVH OASES.:- , - G. W. Phillips v Alfredton Road Board.—Olaim £IOO for damage and loss; The plaint "stated that plaintiff was occupier in possession and lessee of certain sections and owner of others. In July, 1887, and subsequently. defendants' entered upon plaintiff's land and erected certain works whereby plaintiff's land was left'unfenced, and his cattle were lost. Defendants gave a general denial, and consent on part of plaintiff, and that the District Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

Mr Pownall appeared for plaintiff and Mr Beard' for defendants. The following jury were irapannelled—Messrs M, Oaselberg (foreman), L. J. Evans, J, H. Taplin, G. E. Chamberlain, ■ Counsel on both sides agreed to the 1 : claim resting upon the following issues. ■, 1. Did defendants enter upon the: lands and execute the works ? ' 2, If so did the .plaintiff consent to permit the said works to be structed?8. What damage, if/any, did he suffer ? . i. Had the plaiotiff, by his acts, dedicated the land to the Board ? Mr Pownall Bufimitted that the onus of proof was now upon the defendants, as any entry was a trespass unless justified. Justification was pleaded by the defence. Mr Beard submitted that unless the plaintiff proved his claim he had no case. No damage had been shown.

Mr Pownall submitted the fact that defendants pleaded justification, and that was practically admitting the trespass, and it Remained for them to prove their justification. His Honor pointed out that the very' first issue was " Did the defendant enter upon the land ?" That was for plaintiff to prove. Mr Pownall then opened the case for the plaintiff, and stated that his client was owner and occupier of four seotions in Afredton, plan of which he submitted. In July 1887, or thereabouts the defendants, with, out asking his'consent, trespassed on his land and made a road through it. He did not put in an objection, being under the impression that the Board wero going to take the land under (he Publio Works Act. He informed the Board that he did not object to the road being token through his property provided that they took the land in a proper manner and gave him just compensation. The Board, in reply, stated they did not intend to take a road through the property, notwithstanding the fact.that the Board were at the time having the said road made, They made the road, and left his property open at both ends, whereby his cattle got away and were lost. Plaintiff, in order to proteot his stock would require to fence the road on both sides at a cost of £B6 odd. He had also a large strip of land out off from his main property by the road. He had appeared at several meetings of the Board and they had refused to fence the road. Out of 160 'sheep on the property he had lost all but 18. They had also out off his water frontage. Plaintiff gave evidence in accordance with counsel's opening statements. (Left Sitting).