RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 527, 8 July 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

(Before J. Giles Esq., E, M.) Txjesdat, July G. TTJSVN-EIGHBOmtLY NEIGHBOURS. Kenneth M'Leod was charged with assaulting Daniel M'Marian. The parties are diggers ov tailingwasliora at the Caledonian Terrace, and have lately been carrying on a feud which has frequently brought them before the Magistrate' or Warden's Court. M'Marian, who is a little loquacious Irishman, appeared on this occasion with a considerable portion of his right cheek concealed by a piece of sticking-plaster. lie said" that, on the last day of the mouth, there was " a bit of a flood." He was just taking his boxes out, when " Charlie (M'Leod) shtruck him in the face wid a shtone." He " never said nothing" to him, except when he was going to his hut, and then he said " Charlie, I'm tould you're a coward." They had no scuffle. There was just the one blow, and he could swear positively that Charlie had a stone in his baud. Charlie was always threatening him, and told him that, some night, he would never go home. Charlie took fits sometimes, and he didn't know when he might " hit him a kick," or " shtrike him wid a shtone." He was afraid of his life of Charlie. The defendant, when asked if he wished to put any questions, held out his closed fist to the complainant, and said—"What has done that, Dan? What has skinned my knuckle ? Was it not by hitting you?" He continued : —" Dan turned the water off, your Worship ; and I turned it on. I was in the race when he came up with a shovel. I takes the shovel from him, and hits him in the cheek. That's the truth of it, as I stands on here. I never hit him or any man with a stone. He gives me great annoyance, and I can't do anything with him. He comes to me and threatens that he will do for me some of these dark nights." The Magistrate said that, if the complainant interfered with the defendant's claim, the defendant could take the proper remedy. The defendant had been in the Court before, but on that occasion the case was dismissed. He considered this case proved, and fined him £1 and costs.

CITIL CASES. Mangols v. "Williamson.—This was a claim of £65 14s 6d, the balance of an account alleged to be due for boating goods to "the landing" on the Inangahua. The defendant paid

£47 9s 9d into Court, and his defence was that plaintiff, " Peter, the Greek," had agreed to boat the goods at the rate of £l4 per ton. The plaintiff's statement, and that of Perrotti, another boatman, was that £l6 was the figure fixed upon, and that boating had not been lower than £l6 per ton to the Lyell or to the Inangahua landing. The defendant distinctly swore that it was ouly on the understanding that the freight was to be £l4 per ton that he had given the boating to " Peter." The Magistrate said there was no agreement in writing, and where there was no evidence of a special agreement, he considered that the market price should rule the- case. The market price was, at the time, £l6, and the weight of evidence was also in favor of the plaintiff. He gave judgment for the amount claimed, with counsel's fee, Mr Tyler having appeared for the plaintiff. PEOPEBTY V. PHOTOGRAPHY. De Loree v. M'Cole.—This was a claim of a peculiar character, brought by Peter De Loree, a photographic artist, against Hugh M'Cole, publican, and owner of a calico-covered hut which the plaintiff had occupied at the Caledonian Terrace as a " studio." The claim was for the value of fifteen photographic " negatives," a glass funnel, and a number of pictures. Mr Tyler appeared for the defendant.

De Loree related the terms upon which he had rented the house from M'Cole. He told M'Cole that he might require the place for a fortnight, three weeks, or perhaps more, and it was agreed that he should give £1 for its use. On the third Saturday, M'Cole told him that he should require 10s a week, but he refused to give it. He was told to give the key and £1 to Mr M'Farlane, but did not do so ; but on the fourth Saturday paid the £1 to M'Cole himself. On the Sunday, M'Cole came up to the Caledouiau, and, during his absence, entered the place, and disturbed its contents. Immediately after he had noticed this, M'Cole came in, and asked him if he was to keep possession of the place. It was nine o'clock at night, and blowing a harder gale than he had seen on the coast; and he asked to be allowed to stop till next morning. M'Cole called him a " loafer " —said he was " loafing " on him. He told M'Cole to go out of the house, and to talk to him on the following day when he was sober. He was rather the worse of drink at the time. He replied " I will let you see whether I am drunk or not," and he got on to a ladder belonging to him (De Loree) which was standing outside the house, and commenced to tear oft" the calico roof. After the roof was pretty well oft", he (De Loree) saw that his things were being blown about and destroyed, and he took the ladder from M'Cole. M'Cole, however, fetched another ladder, and continued tearing oft" the calico, until he took the ladder from him, as he was moving it, and pitched it away. The wind getting in, nearly everything, including his " negatives," was blown or shaken oft" the shelves. " Negatives were pictures taken on glass, so as to be printed oft" again." Fifteen of them, which he considered worth £1 each, were completely smashed. Sumo "negatives" might be worth nothing, and others might be worth £3 or £-l< according to the demand for the pictures. There was one glass funnel broken, and it could not be replaced without sending to Dunedin. The pictureswere "showpictures "and not of much value. He told the defendant at the time that his children were in bed in the place, but he said " he did not care a damn ; he (De Loree) must go out." Immediately afterwards the place was sold to Mr M'Farlane for a five-pound note. Mr Tyler submitted that, as the case involved a dispute as to ownership of property, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the 'Court. The terms'of the Act were that no Resident Magistrate could take notice of any claim in which the title to grouud or hereditaments was in dispute ; and this, he considered, was such a claim. He referred to a case in Christchurch in which the Magistrate held that he i had no jurisdiction in a case of " assault," inasmuch as it had arisen through a dispute as to property. In this case, if the defendant was entitled to the possession of the property, he was perfectly justified in what he had done. The case might have a different complexion if he had interfered with the plaintiff's goods by any manual action. What he did was simply to take off the roof of his own house. It was by the wind that any damage to the plaintiffs goods was done.

The Magistrate preferred to hear the case out and reserve the point raised. It was quite possible that a person might be exercising rights over his own property, but it was possible that he might also do so in such a way as to involve himself in an action for damages. Granting that the defendant had the title, there might still be a cause of action as to the manner in which he had exercised, that right. It was rather a nice point. John Walker, storeman with Mr M'Farlane, was called by the plaintiff, and said that he saw some of the calico taken off, and some " negatives " broken. M'Cole might have had a nobbier or two, but he was not " far out of the way." Mr Tyler raised another objection—that the plaintiff had given no proper proof of any damage done. It was not shown whether the articles were of any value at all.

The Magistrate said he must hold that any manufactured article must be worth something, if only a 6d. Mr Tyler contended that, in any case, there was nothing to warrant more than nominal damages ; and he spoke at length upon that point and up on the point with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court. The Magistrate reserved his decision until next Court-day (Friday), it being necessary for him, in the interval, to hold a Court at Charleston.