THE COURTS.-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 7655, 4 July 1888, Page 2

THE COURTS.-TO-DAY.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURI.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.)

Judgment for plaintiffs, with costs, was given in the following cases :—A. Thomson v. P. Edwards (claim, L2O 4s 8d), J. Bassett v. J. H. Hooper (L 8 16s), and J. M'Donald v. J. Shand (1,2 12s). C. L. Lemon v. S. Lister.—Claim, L 34 0s 6d. —Dismissed. Reid and another v. Grant and Shand,— In this previously-heard case judgment was delivered as follows:

The plaintiffs claim damages for fences removed by the defendants. The plaintiffs occupy certain Crown lands in block 12, Waipori, under licenso for pastoral purposes. As to the claim for damages in the first count, for removal of gorse hedge and wire fencing in the year 1884, tho evidence as to the state and quality of the fence at the time could not, I think, be more conflicting. On the one side, there is evidence of it being at the time a serviceable and substantial fence; and on the other side, that it was merely the wreck of of a fenoe, and was worthless and not fit to be repaired. Taking into consideration that it was a low sheep fence, that it bounded the Hundreds upon which cattle grazed as well as Bheep, and that it had been erected some eleven or twelve years at the time, it seems to me highly probable the evidence for the defendants is nearer to the real facts than the plaintiffs' version. I do not, however, think that it matters what the condition of the fence was at that tim>*, for I feel satisfied that the removal of such fence as there was at that time was done with tho approval of the plaintiffs, the reason being, as one of them has stated, that he knew the defendants were going to put up a new fence. That being so, and a new fence having been erected, I can see no ground for damages in the first count, The second count is a claim for damages for tho removal of the new fence in April, 1888. The plaintiffs, after some negotiation with defendants, agreed to pay them at the rate of 15 per cent, per annum on the cost of the fence, but never paid anything, and defendants removed the fence. It has been proved the Dew fence was erected in the line of tho old fence, and Mr Lan'gmuir, who surveyed the land for the Government, says that the old fence was made the boundary of the land included in plaintiffs' pastoral license. I can see no right in the defendants to remove the fence. They chose, being large holders of stock grazing in the Hundreds, to erect the fence for their own benefit (to prevent trespass), and when fixed in the land they had no right to remove it. The next question is—What damages are the plaintiffs entitled to recover ? Their license is for ten years from March, 1884, subject, however, to be determined by twelve months'notice if the land is required for certain purposes. The license entitles them to the exolusive grazing rights over the land, but under seotion 125, Land Act, 1877, gives no right to the bo'll ; but it seems to me that the fence having been erected, and an undoubted benefit to them in the enjoyment of their grazing rights, no one had a right to remove the fence; at any rate, not without the consent of the Grown, The damages the plaintiffs are entitled to are such as will place them in as good a position to enjoy their rights under their lioense as they would have had if defendants had not interfered with the fence. To do this it seenw they must erect a fence in the place of the one removed to serve them for the remainder of their term. The length of fencing is about thirty-six chains, and •it 14s amounts to L 25 4s, As to the olaim for ' special damage for loss of lambing of missing , ewes, and the opportunity of putting wethers i on turnips for fattening, I do not think | phintiffs have proved a right to recover. The fence was evidently removed early in April; the Hundreds were mustered on the 19th April, and plaintiffs got possession of their sheep in time for both purposes, and allowing the sheep to escape after this was their own fault. Independent of this, the evidence has shown, strange to pay, that fewer of plaintiffs', sheep-were found in the Hundreds after the removal of the fence than were usually found; there at other musterings. As to a question of' title raised by defendants, I can; see none., There is no dispute as to either ownership or, occupation of the land, and defendants claim neither. Tfee authorities show that when »

defendant seta up a pretendod light which U unknown to the Jaw, or some impossible claim, the title to property cannot be said to come in question. Judgment for plaintiffs for L 25 4s; costs, LBGg6d.

OITY POLICE COURT.

(Before Messrs J. Elmer and G. L. Den

niston, J.P.s.)

Theft.— Charles Menlove pleaded guilty to stealing from the shop of Wing Lee, in the Arcade, one shirt and one tablecloth. — Sergeant-rnajor Bevin said the facts of the case were that accused deliberately went into the shop of the prosecutor, took the articles, and after placing them in a bag ran away. The prosecutor followed and overtook him.—Accused now said that at the time he committed the offence he was under the influence of drink. —On the application of the Probation Officer accused was remanded until next Tuesday. Vagrancy.— Robert Howie was charged with being found last night in a house frequented by persons having no lawful visible means of support.—Evidence was given by Sergeant Mulville, Constable Ruttledge, and Sergeant Macdonell.—-Ser-geant-major Bevin said that the accused was looked upon by the police as a very dangerous character. He had recently been charged with having no visible means of support, and had then been cautioned by the Bench. Accused had been in gaol in various parts of the colony.—ln his defence the accused stated that he worked at shearing, harvesting, and other manual work ; and was willing to work if he could get it. He had been in gaol.—Accused was sent to gaol for two months with hard labor. Obscbne Language. Susan Chapman, for whom Mr Stuart appeared, pleaded not guilty to using obscene language. Evidence in support of the information was given by Constable Ruttledge, but Henry Morrison and Mrs Millar swore that the language was not used by accused.—Mr Stuart thought that the police might have endeavored to bring outside evidence. Both Morrison and Millar, who were in the house at the time, should have been subpoenaed by the police.— Sergeant O'Neill remarked that the police did not think it advisable to bring witnesses of that class.—Accused was sentenced to twenty-one days' imprisonment, with hard labor.

Bylaw Case.—The adjourned charge against Margaret Docherty of keeping an unregistered dog was dismissed, the dog having been registered.