RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON. Yesterday.—(Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, R.M.) Civil Cases.

Waikato Times, Volume XVIII, Issue 1552, 15 June 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MA GISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON. Yesterday.— (Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, R.M.) Civil Cases.

Pascoe v. Winter, claim £4 15s Scl, amount of anl.O.U. Mr Hay for the plaintiff, and Mr O'Neill for defendant. Judgment for £4 os 2d, without costs. Borough of Hamilton v. J. C. Booth, claim £o 14s, value of posts and rails, removed by defendant from the western bridge approach. Mr Hay for plaintiffs, and Mr O'Neill for defendant. The circumstances of the case are familiar to our readers. Defendant was a contractor under Government to repair the bridge approach, and during the progress of the work he removed a quantity of the old bridge material, which had been replaced. The plaintiffs' contention was thai the posts and rails were the property of the borough, and that defendant had no right to remove them. Evidence was led to prove the value of the timber and the fact that the defendant had iemovedit. Mr Vialou and Mr Gwynneth, C.E., were examined as touching the customs of the trade, and Loth deposed that though old material had been appropriated by contractors they had no right to do so. The defence was that the work was a Government work, and as such the Borough Council had no control over it whatsoever ; that in fact the borough had made over the approach to the Government for the purpose of the contract, and that therefore they had no claim upon the material. Mr Hay, for the plaintiffs, contended that the borough had never divested itself of the control of the property at any time. The Magistrate gave judgment for the plaintiffs for £o (is Scl, value of two planks charged to but not taken by the defendant, with costs £8 4s 6d.