DISTRICT COURT.-This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume XVII, Issue 215, 13 September 1886, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.-This Day.

• (Before tho District Judge, Mr Seth Smith )

.IUDOMENT SUMMONS CASKS. H. Davidson & Co. v: James Stewart.—Claim, £S 17s. Defendant was ordered to pay amount claimed within 11 dayp, or 14 days In default. UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment went by default in tbo following cases : — Jamoa Sharp and Co. v. Hamlora Mungakahia. Claim. £30 18a ; coata. fll 10s. William Buchanan v. Thomas Tobba.—Claim, £22 2s lii on P X.: costs. £2 17s. Samuel Il< nry Webb v. Mury Mason.—Claim, £51 53 6d, for 10 wcoka' rent under deed of leaßo. Costa, £i IG-. Toloy v. R. Hopkins.—Claim, £26; oasts, £1 10). Tho defendant promised to pay £5 vet ni inth.—llls Honor dcol'ned to aooopt the olior, but gave judgment for tho full amount. J. Lawford v. A. D, Ilennott.—Claim. £50, for damages alleged to bo oaused to plaintiit"B land by an rxosvation made by defendant. — Mr Hugh Cam(jbill nppearod for tho plaintill', nnd Mr Rigby for tho defendant. — Ills Honor, in giving judgment, roniarknd that this action was brouKht to recovor damago for an alleged injury to tho plaintiff's land, by reason of the defendant excavating .within hia own land on tho boundary linoa which divided his land from the plaintiffs. Ho anould have had no hesitation in deciding tbo caso upon its merits, nor havo had any doubt as to what that decision ought to be, had it not been that a question had been laised aa to tho t'tlo ot tho land, and tho contention that tho iuriadiotion of the Court was thus vested. In ordW to determine iho preliminary objection. His Honor reviewed tho facta ot tho case Tho fonoo lay wholly on tlio defendant's side, und the ditch on tho plaintiff*4 . As the fenoo and ditch wo o recent, thero could bo no question as to tho acquisition of rights. Tho ditch was dug before tho plaintiff aoquirod any interest In tho land, and hail subsequently been used by tho plaintiff Tho defendant excavated close to tho fence for tho purposo of creoting a stable, leaving ouly a narrow strip of land between. Tho result, was that this gave way and fell into tli) dofoiulant'aexcava ion. Hocousideied tho damage doi.o to tho plaiiitilfs land had been ioflnitcßßmally small. So soon as tho land was divided tho owner of each lot had a right to ÜBe the land aa ho choao, provided that ho did not injuro tho land of hi 3 neighbours. Tho trivial nature of tho present claim mado It highly Inadvisable that a llnal determination of tho oaro should not bo arrived at. It the right, to excavate was a natural right of property, and that seemed to beur tho halanooof authority in ita favour, then ho considored thut there wua jurisdiction to determine whether any such rights haol boen acquired, and upon the facts disclosed in tho ovidonce, ho had no hesitation in finding that no Buoh right aa tho plaintiff olaiinod had b:-on acquired by law. Therefore, tho plaintiff had faded to establish a causo of aot'on. and he would give judgment for Iho defendant with costs, £7 is. APPLICATION HUB NEW TRIAL. Diver v. Cambria Gold Mining Co.—Mr D'Mcagher appeared for tho applicant, and Mr Burton for tho defendant Co. His Honor decided to allow a now trial, and alno that it would havo to go before c jury. It, was rosolvoil that tbo case Bbould bo hoard on tho 28th instant.