Magistrate's Court, Milton.

Bruce Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 41, 26 May 1910, Page 5

Magistrate's Court, Milton.

Tiidrsday, May 26tii. Boforo J. R. Bartholomew, Esq., S,M. NOYIOUS WEEDS. Goorgo S. Hall, farmer, Lovolls Fut, was charged with failing to dostroy noxious weeds on his property, Defjudaur. said he would have to pload gui y. Thero seemed roally nothiog elso to do. H. A. Munro, Inspector, said on 20th April last he had inspected tho proper y, mid. tho thistles wero cut except on about 15 acres of land in turnips. Subsequently wi h Inspec:or ClapcoM, m<ido a joint inspec'ion. Nothing had beon done. Mr Hall said ho thought the thistles being so lato would not come to seed, but was shown soed from the plants. The defendant said tho inspector had not'said anything about cm,ting too thistles referred to on his first visi-.. Tho thistlos had sinco boon cm. In reply to His Worship, Mr Munro said thero were about two acres of thistles on the turnip land complained of, and it would cost about 12a to clear them. His Worship said thero was no necessity for tho Inspector to givo notice. The obligation was on the defendant to keep his land clear. Fined £2 and costs.

CIVIL CASESBruce Coal Company v Ellon Meyos, claim £1 2<? 4d. Mr Raid for tho plaintiff said so much had been paid, and judgment was givon for tho baianco 23 9d and costs 14s. M. Henderson v Robert M'Donald, claim ,£24 4s 8d on a judgment summons. Mr D. lieid for plaintiff said tho defendant had called on him and agroed to an order for i!l por month. Judgment was given on that basis for tho payment of £1 por month, in default ono mouth's imprisonment.

A EOYALTY DISPUTE.

Autonio Annicich v. John Higgio, claim £25 12a 6d for royalty 011 stono taken from ;he plaintiffs properly and damages for wrongful entry and trespass. ■' Mr Keid appearod for plaintiff, and Mr G. EL. Thomson for dofondatit, Mr iieid in opening iho case said the partiea were neighbours aud were very friendly, but through a grosa trospass theso relations had been attained. The defendant entored on certain lands of the plaintiff—to wit 11 quarry aud took away certaia stono and damaged plain* tiff's fences. The defendant had not asked permission to take stone from the quarry, and when ho remoustratod with the defendant ho only received abuse. Some delay occurred and the defendant still continued to take the stono in defiance ot plaintiff's objection, Defendant took a largo quantity of stono from the quarry, On April sth, defendant started taking stone from another quarry, but the County Council would not havo it because it was rotten. Defendant thon again entered on plaintiff's land, and whon the gato was locked defendant dug out the post and threw the gato aside. Plaintiff had assessed tho valuo of the stone at 61 per yard tinl Is per yard for howing. Tho pluiotiiT also claimed over aud übovo this for aggravated damages, and this was fixed tu £i>. Tho plaintiff was a loaaeho'dur with right to purchase.

Tho pliamHT g<wo evidence on the facts outlined in counsel's statement. , Cross-oxamiuid by Mr Thoiuuon, tho plaintiff said he had not Übked defendant to rnako lumngeiuont as to tho taking of tho stoue. J30.1i plaintiff and defendant woro tendi'M's for a contract wi h tho County Council, and ihe duiendan, got tho job. To tho Court: The fence taken down was fixed up every evening by the defendant, hue not so well as it was at first. John Annicich, a boy of 15, and son of plaintiff, gave evidence. Thomas Maloney, who had been work ing with the defendant at tho quarry guve evidence thai plaintill gave him 10 minutes notico to leavo iho quarry. Told plaintill there was no use quarrelling over tho stone, but roforred him to Mr Higgio. Had lent a h:ind to shift tho gate—or tho two or throo hurdles—when they had beou locked. To Mr Thomson: Had told the plainlilt ihere was no uso quarrelling over tho slonc, as it had to come out of that quarry. The plaintiff spoko " fairly strong." Did not hear Iliggie make any threats on Aunicich's lile, nor hoar Higgio say he would cut Annicich's throat. Annicich did not givo Higgio a chance to put v question evon, nor come to any arrangements, Tho languago was a " bit strong " on botn sides. Re-examined by Mr Raid : Never heard Higgie propose any arrangemont with plaintiff, Alex. Nelson, county engineer, said ho had been a county engineer since 1676. The specifications for tho contract for which Higgio aod Annicich had been tenderers had boon altered from brpaking tho metal in he.Bps to breaking the stones on tho surface. It was done to brig tho cost within tho amount of the grant, and also bcoiuso men to break metal in heaps on the road?ido could not. bo got. Annicich had putin for tho con - tract on a wrong basis, and was therefore too high. Had nob mndo any ar. rangemont with Annicich about tak* ing the stono from his quarry, bub had Bpt cified that it f-houlii be from Annicich's quarry, as it was the best stone, It was for the contractor to make arrangements ro the taking of tho stono. > Had written to Higgle when ho (Higgie) had complained ihat Annicich had objeoted to him taking tho stono that it was a ma ter of arrangement between the parties. Priors for quarrying stono varied, but it would cost at Annicich's Is 6d a yard, and Gd would not be outside value for the stone. It was the best in tho di.trict.

To Mr Thomson.—Annicich, so far as he knew, saw tho spt cific itions beforo they were altored. So far as witness knew, Annicich wa3 not advisod of tho alteration, but bis tooder wan not wrong on that point, but ho had tondored for more motuliing thnn was in the contract. The fixing of the taking of the s'ono from Annicich's quarry coriainly gave Anni-. cicii a chance over tbe others, but it was not unusual to stipulate where tho stone mbst bo taken from, h was a matter

of arrangement between the contractor and tho owner of the atone, The County had a right to take stone where thoy had necessity to do bo. That right did not oxtond to a private contractor. Higgio would do no damago to the land by entering the quarry., There could only be technical damage. Sixpence was a big price for tho stone. Fourponco was a fair prico for royalty, and Is Gd a roasonnblo prico for quarrying, Mr Thomson submitted that tho plain* tiff should be nonsuited. Apart from the trespass and tho conversion of tbo sr,one, tho wrong party was before the Court. Tho Bruce County Council should be the party. Thn plaintiff's possossory title wasf not sufliciom, to ontitle him to say tho sHme was bi3. Sections 106 and 111 of tho Public Works Act, and section 48 of tho Counties Act had a bearing on tho case. Tho plaintiff, although ho know the defendant svas bound to take tho stono from his quarry, never offered a chance to make terms, but ordered tho defendant off. Notice had been given tho plaintiff of intended entry on his land by tho fact of tho quarry boing mantionodin the specifications of tho con tract which tho plaintiff was perfectly aware of. Higgto wont to tho quarry in good faith, and when Annicich camo to him Higgie referred him to the County Council. The lawsuit points were reserved till balance of the evidence was heard. Eventually judgment was reserved,