THE COURTS.-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 7650, 28 June 1888, Page 2

THE COURTS.-TO-DAY.

SUPREME COURT.-CIVIL SITTINGS,

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.)

William Waugii v. Timothy and Bernard Sheehy.—Claim, LIOO, for alleged trespass.

Mr Mouat appeared for plaintiff; Sirß. Stout for Timothy Sheehy ; Mr Finlayson for Bernard Sheehy.

The statement of claim set forth that from the 9th March, 1874, the plaintiff has been possessed of a piece of land—section 62, block 3—shown on the record map of the Mount Benger district, and containing fourteen acres more or less; that the defendant Timothy Sheehy several years ago, without the plaintiff's leave or other lawful authority, broke into and entered the said land, dug up and injured the soil, and constructed a waterrace through the land and a reservoir for storing water on Crown lands adjoining, and brought a stream of water through the said water-race into the said reservoir, which water being penned back by the dam-bank of the reservoir overflowed, and covered a large portion of the plaintiffs land; that on the 23rd April, 1888, the defendant Bernard Sheehy and another person in the employment of the defendants, by the directions of the said Timothy Sheehy, entered upon the plaintiffs land and dug trenches therein ; that the plaintiff warned the defendants not to .trespass upon his land ; that the defendant Timothy Sheehy wrongfully claims a right to construct water-races through, and to pen water upon, the plaintiff's land; that the defendants continue and threaten to continue to trespass upon the said land; that the plaintiff has suffered damage to the value of LICO through the aforesaid trespasses; wherefore the plaintiff prays judgment for LIOO, and also an injunction restraining the defendants from any repetition of the acts complained of. The defendants, in their statement of defence, admitted that the plaintiff occupied section 62, block 3, Mount Benger district, but they aver that that section is Crown land and part of a mining reserve within the Otago goldfields, and they allege that the plaintiff has no right, title, or license to occupy the said section. The defendants further say that they are holders of miners' rights and the registered holders of dams and water-races, parts of which are situated on the section aforesaid, and that as holders of the said dams they use the section. The defendants admit that they and their servants have trespassed upon the said land; but they aver that, as goldminers holding miners' rights and being the holders of registered titles to the dams and water races, they were justified in entering and authorising their servants to enter the said land. For a further defence, the defendants say that the plaintiff has neither possessed nor occupied the parts of the section which the defendants have occupied, save that he may have trespassed thereon. The case was proceeding when we went to press. CITY POLICE COURT. (Before Messrs E. H. Carew. R.M., and G. E. Eliott, J P.). Drunkenness. Annie Walker, a first offender, for whom Mr Stuart appeared, was fined ss, or the usual alternative. Eliza Harding (forty-five previous convictions) pleaded for another opportunity to reform.—The Bench fined her 5s or twentyfour hours' imprisonment; thus giving her a chance of making a fresh start. They announced that if she were again convicted she would receive a long term. Cruelty to Animals.— Alfred Brown was charged with working a horse with open sores under the harness on the 22nd, in Leith street. Mr Fraser appeared for the Inspector of Cruelty to Animals.—Evidence was given by Inspector Aitken and Edward Sullivan as to the existence on the animal of four sores, averaging in size from 2|in to There was a place cut out of the harness over one of the sores. The sores altogether were very much inflamed and dirty, and the horse very weak.—Accused said he had only worked the horse for about three hours, whilst another horse was being shod, and had in the meanwhile done his best to protect the sores. He was a poor man, and poverty made a man do what he otherwise might rot think of.—The Bench fined him 40s and costs, in default ten days' imprisonment; remarking that the man's poverty was no excuse for working the horse and causing it pain. Adjournments. —The following cases for maintenance were adjourned for fourteen days:— Isabella Moffitt v. William Henry Peters ; Alice Powell v. Thomas Powell.