THE COURTS.—TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 6417, 10 October 1883, Page 2

THE COURTS.—TO-DAY.

SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.)

Thk Southland County Council v. the Waimea Plains Railway Company (Ltd,).— Motion for writ of mandamus.

On application of Mr Stout (for defendants) tho matter was allowed to stand over until next Banco day. Re an award made in an Arbitration between James Waddle and Alexander Cameron,—Motion to set aside award. Mr Stout mentioned that It had been agreed to let this matter stand over with a view to settlement. To stand over accordingly.

Jonkb (appellant) v. Rudman (respondent).— Case on appeal from Resident Magistrate's Court, Milton. Mr Mouat appeared for the appellant; Mr D. Reld, of Milton, for the respondent. This was an appeal from the Resident Magistrate's Court, Milton. The caHe was decided by Mr J. N. Wood on April 24. The appellant, who was the plaintiff, sought to recover halfcost of a dividing fence, and the question now at issue was with respect to the construction of sections 25 and 26 of tho Fencing Act, 1881. After argument, His Honor s&id that the Magistrate's decision could not be sustained, because ho had no jurisdiction to ascertain the question before him, which was a question of title to land, He had jurisdiction under the 32ndsoction of the Act to entertain questions of the kind if they were brought before him in the peculiar way specified by tho 33rd section; but otherwise ho had no jurisdiction The defendant was perfectly justified in raising the question of title as a defence to|thcaction, and itappeared he raised it bonafidc, and that being so tho Magistrate, acting under his ordinary jurisdiction iu tho Resident MagisAct, and not at all under the 33rd ecction of tho Fencing Act, ought to have held his hand. His Honor thought that the appeal should bo allowed ; but as tho appeal was not allowed on the ground upon which it was based, it iihould be allowed without costs. Had it been allowed in any othor way the case would have had to go back to the Magistrate to ascertain tho amount payable. As it was, the judgment would simply have to bo setasido. Maoandrew and others v. Naimer. Motion for a now trial. Mr Haggitt (for plaintiffs) moved for a now trial; Mr F. R. Chapman appeared to show cause. [Left fitting.] RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Beforo I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.) Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in the following cases:—R. Allan v. F. Wray, claim, L 3 Bs, on a judgment summons (to be paid by tho 13th hist,, In default soven days'

imprisonment); Hallenstein Bros. v. J. T. Miles, L 5 17s 6d, ifor goods supplied; Guthrie and Lamaoh's Company v. W. Kelly, L 49 3s 9d, on a dlrfionored'bill.

D'Aroy Stanfleld v. the Union Steam Ship Company.—Claim, L7O, value of a portmanteau full of dresses and other theatrical effects shipped in one of the defendant's vessels at Wellington for delivery at Napier, but lost on the passage.—ln this previously - heard case Hi* Worship was about to deliver judgment, when Mr Solomon, who appeared for plaintiff, asked to bo allowed to cite cases bearing on the question of there being a contract or no contract botwoen the parties.—Mr Denniston objected to the learned counsel's being now allowed to cite case? —His Worship; I think the plaintiff's case is faulty on several points, and that he had bettor take a nonsuit.—Mr Solomon: I should like to know the grounds, if your Worship pleases. His Worship: Well, I'd rather not give them unless you wish. —Mr Solomon : I should like to know them. -His Worship: Well, I think you have failed to prove that there was a contract, either simple or statutory, —Mr Solomon: Is there any other ground, your Wot ship?— His Worship : No; I may say that owing to having been kept busy a'. the Police Court yesterday I have net been aMo to thoroughly look up the law as to contract. I may remark that I think if, i* a case which the Union Company should defend en its meats.--Mr Denniston; The Company are quite prepared to do so, but for the discrepancy in the evidence of Mr Stanfleld and Mr Ashtoa as t j tho portmanteau having been put on board the steamer. The Company could bring evidecco to prove that Stanfield had said ho never saw the portmanteau on board at all—Mr Solomon: I will accept a nonsuit and give notice of appeal. J, Do Clifford v. T. Pointon.—Claim, L 5, for money paid at defendant's request, also for liquors and drinks supplied. Mr Catamore appeared for plaintiff ; Mr Denniston for defendant, —After a great deal of evidence had been given His Worship said that as no evidence had been given as to whether plaintiff held a publican's license or not, plaintiff could not recover for the liquors supplied. Judgment would be given for plaintiff for LI 13s, with costs. T. Pointon v. J. De Clifford.—Claim, L 8 18a, for hay supplied and tho depasturing of defendant's horses. Mr Denniston appeared for plaintiff; Mr Catomore for defendant.—Judgment was given for plaintiff for LI 10s, wtth costs. M. Oouglin v. D. Sinnott.--Claim, L 95 103, for wages from February 4, 1882, to September 29, 1883. at LI 03 per week. Mr Gallaway appeared for plaintiff; Mr Denniston for defendant.

[Left sitting.]

CITY POLICE COURT. (Before J, Logan, Esq., J.P., H. F. Hardy, Esq., J.P., and A. Ronnie, Esq., J.P.) Drunkenness. For this offence Thomas Robertson, John APDonald, John Carson, John Thorn alias John 1 homos, and Hovmd Lear were all fined sa, in default six hours' imprisonment ; William Walface ss, or twenty-four hours'; Peter M'Lusly alias Patrick M'Lusbj 10s, cr forty-eight hours'; John Larnath 20i, or four day*.'. On a fui ther charge of using obscene language the latter prisoner was fined 20s, or four days' imprisonment; the sentences to be cumulative. Assault.—William Parton charged Ernest Warburton with assault. Mr Fltchott appeared for the complaiuant; Mr J. A. D. Adams for the defence.—This was a trivial dispute arising out of a quarrel between the children of the complainant and the defendant.—A fine of Is and costs was imposed.