RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 2035, 12 November 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

'i nis Day. (Before A, 0. Strode, Esq., 11. M.) Civil, UA3E3. Janies M‘Vickor v. Henry Hooper,—L2 11s. Judgment by default. Brown v. Browne.—A claim of L 5 damages in consequence of trespass by the defenda t’s cattle. Mr Stewart for plaintiff, Mr Bathgate for the defence. Tho plaintiif and defendant are holders of neighboring property, 1 and ilia complaint was that earth had been thrown against the Jiyid.ng B two in such a way as to facilitate The defendant’s cattle getting over tho fence into the plaintiffs ground. In cross-examination, the plaintiff said that the wires and posts of the fence had been damaged by Browne’s cattle getting at his oat crop. They had been amongst Ins cattle every day for a week, but he never complained nor claimed anything until lie served" Mr Browne with a summons. —Evidence was given to show that there was a road-line between the tv.'# properties; hut ro road-line was shown on the plgus. Mr Bathgate contended that there was no case to answer, as no damage was shown, no notice of trespass of the cattle was given, and the fence was in good condition.—The .defendant said he dug a well for watering hi.s cattle on tho ground stated to bo a road line, and no objection was ma le t,p iiis having done so. The fence was in gooil cpiiditioii, and sufficient to protect the land on both shf.es against cattle trespassing, His Worship sauT'it 5 ms C pity so trifling a case should come bef.-re ilia t'otii t. As for the question of a road Hue, that was an open one. There could be no question that damage had been done by cattle trespassing, and he should therefore give judgment for SfO», \nth costs,

Lamb v, E. Wheeler.—A claim for L2, for shipping two seamen on board the steamer Lord Ashley. The plaintiff applied to be allowed to increase his claim. The application was refused. The plaintiff is an agent for shipping seamen, and in his evidence ■stated that he was appli d to to obtain four seamen for the Lord Ashley by a specified hour. Ho did so They were shippe 1 aocorling to the provisions of the Merchant Seaman s U-t.—' >no of the seamen said that ho was engaged by Lnmb for the Lord Ashley, and went on board a" Port Chaim, rs. Being engaged at once in taking in cargo, the vessel sailed before signing articles The agreement was to sign articles for two mouths hut ihe defendant required tocm to sign for six months, and in consequence they leit the vessel at the Bluff. Captain Wiieohr said the men shipped at Port Chalmers under the arrangement, that, they should sign articles at Port nil aimers or' the Bluff. _ Only one consented to sign the articles. The mte complaincd that o m was so bad tempered that he cou d not w rk with him, and three were part; d with at the Bluff. From the evidence of the seamen who signed the articles it appeared that in consequence of some intimidation they wore not signed until the arrival of the vessel at Wellington. His Worship considered the plaiiitili had performed the work he agreed to do, and was entitled to a verdict for the amount. Verdict for the plaintiff, L‘2 and coats. Douglass v. Young.—A claim for Ll7 10s for commission. Mr Cook for the plaintiff and Mr Stewart for the defendant. The plaintiff said he met Mr Young in Princes street in company with Mr Gray, timber merchant ; in the course of conversation he ask d if he was going to sell his house. Yomg said he thought of doing so ; he had not then employed an agent, and would sooner employ hun (the plaintiff) than anyone else. The defendant asked I .SOU for the house, and named Mr Watt as a likely purchaser. Mr \Vatfc objected to the price, and be tried to geu it of other persons. Ultimately Mr Watt bought the house for a less sum, and on application to Mr Young for commission, lie said he would pay none, as the house was sold too cheap, and lie could not afford ic. 'rite house was sold for L7OO, and he claimed 2$ per cent, upon the amount. —Mr Watt, the purchaser, considered that he had bought the house through the intervention of Mr Douglas?.—Mr Moodio, of the firm of Connell and Moodio, proved the current rate of commission on the sale of property. Fur the defence, Mr Stewart contended that Mr Douglass was not engaged to sell the property, and that Mr Watt did not buy the property through his agenc}'. —Mr Young said that ho gave Mr Douglass no instructions to sell, but the latter told him he had a customer who wanted one, and named Mr Watt. Mr Watt called, but they did not agree, and it was two months afterwards that the ho"se was sold without the intervention of Mr Douglass. —His Worship said it appeared the question was, whether the contra ding parties were introduced to each other through the agency of Douglass. He was of opinion that the refusal of Mr Watt to pure ease closed his agency, and that the negotiation was renewed by Mr Watt personally. Judgment for the defendant. [Left sitting.]