DISTRICT COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XIII, Issue 4070, 23 March 1892, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

MASTERTON.-WEMESDAY-. (Before His Honor District Judge Eobinßon.) MILLER V. ELDER, His Honor stated thut in the oase of C. R. Miller v. H. E. Elder, a claim ol L 176 for damages ht alleged eviction, the appeal had been allowed without costs, The jurisdiction of the court was therefore closed, Mr Bunny, who appeared for the plaintiff, stated that ho did not intend proceeding further with the case, Mr Morrison for the defendant, asked for costs. Mr Bunny urged that costs could not be allowed. After considerable argument His Honor said he did not feel called upon to exercise his discretion adverse to the defendant. He would strike out the action, declining jurisdiction, and allow costs as upon a nonsuit, The costs, according to scale amounted to L 22 2s. CAVANAGH V. WATSON. In this case which was a claim for damages, Mr Pownall, who appeared for the plaintiff, entered a discontinuance, stating that the notion had been governed by the decision in tho oase Miller v. Elder, His Honour apparently having no jurisdiction, The withdrawal of tho caso was allowed by His Honour, coats amounting to £5 19s being entered for the defendant, ' BANKnUPIOT OASES. The applications of Adam Donald, : builder, of Featherston, and Sarah ; Jane Cook, of Greytown, for their ' disohargca from bankruptcy were ' granted. The bankruptcies of T. J. James, Augustus Brr,/n, Edward Holt, ', .William Brannigan and tteorge i Towpsend were declared closed. ] BIOKNELLV. DONALD, , This was a case in which the ex- ' eoutors of the late William Bicknell, ] of Featherston, claimed from James I Donald, of the same township, ] ■ the sum of LIOO damages for tres-. ; pass, and an injunction, i Mr Patterson appeared for the ' plaintiff and Mr Beard for the do- ' iendanl. Mr Patterson said His Honor was i asked to try whether or not the road- i way across section 71, Featherston, " had been completely dedicated. If not, had defendant madohimself liable for damages for trespass ? It ap> \ peared that the defendant had pur- j chased a section of land adjoining that ■ of the plaintiff and had passed through j Bflot'on 71) the property of the plain- , tiff, for some years, A difference ' having arisen the defendant asserted [ his right to pass along the roadway through section 71, maintaining that - it had been dedicated to the- Boad Board and that he had a prescriptive i right" Ab there was no roadway ' shown on any plan, and a dedication ' had not been made, this action had been brought. • Mr Biard maintained that the statement of claim revealed a dedi> cation, Mr Patterson in reply said that the roadway was never opened as a roadway. The gate was simply erected as an interruption in a line of fence, and was not the termination of a litn ' of roadway, Mr Bicknell had sim» ply said, "I will hook a gate in that particular place if the Board does not object." The Board did not object, and the gate was put there, The dedication was never completed, and now a roadway if suddenly asked for, He submitted that His Honour should bear the evidence reserving the points raited, His Honor decided to hoar evidence. John Thos.Bicknell, called/stated : I am a son of the late W, Bicknell, arid proprietor of section 71 and others, in the Moroa Block, I am 25 years of age. As far back aa I remember there was a private road from the house on section 51 to Eivens Eoad, Iremember several people who occupied section 82 before Mr Donald, There was a gateway from the old No, 1 road lino into section 32, but not into seotion 72, Section 32 was fenced against this line; 71 was not. The gateway was used by everyone, I Used it to go to South Featherston, and my brothers used it. In the first instance a slip panel was used, Other persons than persons residing on seotion 82 used the gateway. Some people came to the house and asked for permission to crosß section 71, I first heard that a publio road was clajmed by defendant; in December, 1890, Mr Duck was manager fpr Mr Donald, and on one pecasipn cutoff a cornerof the fence on section 71 to gain access from 32 to j)3. This was done because Mr Donald could not get from 82 to 08 on dry ground. An arrangement was come to for fivo shillings a year to fence off a corner. My fatherand Mr Donald cut a drain along the boun« daay on section 71. In consequence of Mr Goodrick's proposing to cut the drain right through to his section. I had a conversation with Mr Duck and afterwards with Mr Donald, I then ; (old him that until'he Showed mVsotae tMe fo 'it I 'w'pujti hot lei him life the corner any longer.'' Mv Donald replied that as t' had been so ',' mighty snlart'!' about it', "ho wqrild "remove" the gate leading to 'fl. My f*r h,ad tpld mo that the settlers had arranged a roadway from Kivens road to the old road line. Mr Donald appeared, annoyed when I spoke to him. The conversation ocourred in December and the gate was removed about the first of January, Mr Donald had been using, the gateway to drive through for some time, It was al-

ways closed afterwords. lithe 'gato was left open tlio whole paddock was open to the road, I should have made complaint if the gatoway had been left opon before. About the third of January I first noticed that the gato was gone. At this stage the Court adjourned until 2 o'clock.