Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

ASHBURTON.— To-dat. (Before Mr. Nugent Wood, R. M.) DISTURBING THE PEACE. ; - J Joseph Ibell, Alexander and James Meharry, with James McNevin, were charged with having, on Christmas Day, behaved in such a manner as -to create, a breach of the peace. After taking evidence, the ; Meharrys were discharged, and the other two culprits each fined in the sum of ss. and costs. ; Richard Lancaster, charged with a similar offence, admitted having been somewhat unruly, but pled extenuating circumstances/ Fined 20s. and costa. STRAY CATTLE. Patrick McTeague, for allowing two cows and a calf to wander at large was fined ss. for each. John Worner, for allowing a horse to wander at large, was fined-6s. arid costs, 2s. _, Benjamin Smith, for tethoning a horse on a public reserve, was fined 2s. and costs, 2s. CIVIL CASES. Grice to Saunders.—Dr. Foster, instructed by Mr. Hammersley, for plaintiff. Mr Branson, for defendant, stated that in a .conversation; between plaintiff and him-: self they had; arranged for the : adjournment of the case for a month ; and after Grice had been put in the box to give a statement as to; the varacity of Mr. Branson, his Worship granted the adjournment for four weeks.

Fergus v. Peter.. —Mr. O’Reilly for defendant, on behalf of Mr. Harper, applied for an adjournment, a request which was opposed by Mr, Purnell for - , plaintiff.’ Adjourned for fourteen days. Dudson v. Dick—-Claim, LI 45.,-6d. Mr. O’Reilly for plaintiff. Judgment lor LI 2s. Cd. . , , 1 -j r J" j 'Morrow vi Wilson—-Claim, 1 Is. lOd. —Mr. Purnell for plaintiff. Mr. Spaceman; for defendant. Counsel for defence raised a question of jurisdiction, arguing that, in consequence’of fencing’ matters beirig in- , volved, his Worship had no -power'either to hear or decide the case. After long argument* his Worship consented to goon' with the case, reserving, the points raised for future consideration. Evidence was then taken, Mr. Spackman interpolating that he objected to all evidence which might be taken. Mr. Morrow, plaintiff, stated that he and defeudant held adjoin-? ing properties, and a dividing fence hja'd l been partly erected about 1 5 months ago. Defendant saw me doing the work. Went with a neighbor'to see Mr.; Wilson about the fence! The latter bias since objected to pay, but afterwards asked me what there was to pay. I told him he would, have, ;to ; ; : pay half ; the cost. • He said r “ All! right ; ry see. you some of these days,” and then went away. Afterwards 1 put up a legal fence, which has now been completed about a month. I produce a correct copy of notice served, on Wilson’s man, who is in charge of the place. At the ! time Mr.. Wilson was living in Christchurch Robert Taylor was in charge of the place, and it was to him I gave the notice. Defendant made no counter offer, nor did he respond in any way. Five or six weeks after serving notice I commenced to fence, as I had my crops there, and could not otherwise keep defendant’s horses out. The; manager told me, in defendant’s presetted, that the matter was all settled, and there would be • no trouble in future. Taylor is Wilson’s manager. I then completed the fence according to notice. , The fence icost me LI2 3a. 9d. Taylor told me that Wilson was willing to pay if the, hill was then put in aqd it was not too tig-: : ■ Gave' the bill ■ to Taylor; it has not been paid. By Mr. Spackman—l believe the defendant owns the land. He has never disputed;being the owner. / Do, not whether he lias sold thedand. Mr. Purirelltwrote out the notice. The fence erected is a proper one, and will keep out cattle. The manager his told me that the fence is a proper one. If defendant says the fence is not a proper one.there-will bo a dispute about it. 1 am not able to interpret the law like you arc. Defendant is the reputed ‘owner of the land. The land did not belong to Wilson when the fencing commenced. I have charged Wilson just htilf what the fencejhas coat me. James Robin, —Assisted Mr. Morrow in erecting /the

fence, which is a good one. I believe it will keep out sheep and cattle. Know,;; Mr. Robert Taylor. He is in charge of,* ' Mr. Wilson’s place. Baw Mr. Taylor while the fence was.being’.erected, and he ; asked me if plaintiff Wits going'to, send in, : a bill for the cost of the'Jeucei I? said Mr. Morrow would willingly do-so. .He ,* said Wilson would pay his sharp. &fter • the fence was finished Morrow expressed his s disfact'on with the fence. By Mr. Spackman—Parc of the fume was cond when I commenced to fence. There was no wire on the sod-bank fence when 1 saw it, at the time of commencing to fence.' Williarn Meharry, sworn—l know, defendant’s farm at Rakaia. He does not live there. Robei t Taylor is in. charge*-.-.of.* the-farm, i I understand Taylor to be Wilson’s manager. He once told me that Wilson would pay his share. Francis Wilson was-put ju by Mr. Purnell and oh being asked by the latter whether he owned land at Rakaia, Mr. Spackman objected to tho - questionpor ’any J)ther which would prejudice his dent’s *<&se. Mr. Purnell submitted that'- iii’ Actions of contracts such questiorii could be ; put. It was only; iti matters of tort;’that an objection could be- raised. ' HiS ' Worship allowed the question -and -the examination continued—l hold'the land on terms. Have objected to the fence erected by Mr. Morrow. When I; took the land there was only a sod fence and two wires. Do not know who erected it. My horses have got on Morrow’s land but from off-the road. By Mr. Spackman—The foneb was there when I first took the land. Morrow has added two wires to the fence. Have objected to fay plaintiff. The fence is bn the bbnhdiry line. Plaintiff re-examined r —I paid for the sod-bank fence being r put up. No' One has paid anything 'tqvyards the cost of it. Only applied for the fence by the notice. By Mr. Spackman —When I gave him the. notice, the sod bank whs there, but in some plAces broken down also. Mr. Spackman asked for a nonsuit, inasmuch as the evidence for for plaintiff was contradictory, and also that the notice was not properly served. The agent’s authority was not proved. Mr. Purnell replied, and* his Worship, , after consulting. the Ordinance, thoughtthat the, notice given Vas, not sufficient, observing that' the notice should be served on the party at his* tesiderfee,' ttr with an adult at his last known place" of abode. His Worship said he would give a decision on 'all the points raised'on Friday next. M‘Gee v. Poyntz and Co.—Claim Ll 7 165.7 d. Mr. Ptlmell for plaintiff,Mr. Spackman for defendants. Counsel for plaintiff wished to amend the amount, so as to reduce the daits ,tp Ll 5 Us. 2d. • Mr. Spaceman made a preliminary objection. The Act had not been complied with, as the plaintiff had not supplied -particulars of demand along -With the summons. ■ Mr. Purnell submitted 5 that the plaintiff had done all that the Court, at a previous sitting, hiid-required 6f him - . - M r * Spackman again argued that the summons had not been served, seeing that ;the particulars of demand were not attached to it. ■ The case was then proceeded with, his Worship reserving his decision, on the point raised by Mr. S packman/ - by whom, also a set-off,.wap -put m.,.-Evidence was taken at considerable length, most of it of a professional character, regarding rates of interest, valuation, travelling expenses, etc , . quite, an, army ;of local commission agents being called on to relate the usual practice in . cases of the kind. >Au item in a set-off, “ Advertising a bull,” created someamusement at different times, and 'his Worship, .in giving judgment, disallowed, the amount. Verdict,waft ultimately given for defendant—Jie total amount of set-off being in excess of the claim. Mr. Spaceman applied for costs, which - were granted, amounting in the whole to L 3 9s.' Loft sitting.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AG18810107.2.9

Bibliographic details

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume 2, Issue 236, 7 January 1881

Word Count
1,351

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 2, Issue 236, 7 January 1881

  1. New formats

    Papers Past now contains more than just newspapers. Use these links to navigate to other kinds of materials.

  2. Hierarchy

    These links will always show you how deep you are in the collection. Click them to get a broader view of the items you're currently viewing.

  3. Search

    Enter names, places, or other keywords that you're curious about here. We'll look for them in the fulltext of millions of articles.

  4. Search

    Browsed to an interesting page? Click here to search within the item you're currently viewing, or start a new search.

  5. Search facets

    Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.

  6. View selection

    Switch between images of the original document and text transcriptions and outlines you can cut and paste.

  7. Tools

    Print, save, zoom in and more.

  8. Explore

    If you'd rather just browse through documents, click here to find titles and issues from particular dates and geographic regions.

  9. Need more help?

    The "Help" link will show you different tips for each page on the site, so click here often as you explore the site.

Working