HAWERA R.M. COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume VIII, Issue 1371, 29 July 1886, Page 2

HAWERA R.M. COURT.

"Wednesday, July 28. (Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.) FENCING DISPUTE. Brophy v. Arnold. — This was an application to the Resident Magistrate for the defendant to remove a fence aud re-erect it on the correct line. The fence is a fonr-wire fence, plain wire, three posts to the chain; would keep quiet cattle out, but is by no means a legal fence. Mr. Caplen, on behalf of defeudant, said that the case unfortunately occurred on account of absence of back pegs. Arnold agreed to fence the back line, Brophy agreeing to go and consult with him as to position of fence, but failed to appear. Arnold fenced, aud Brophy demurred to fence being on hia land. No arrangement by nrbjuativn waß Consents Co l>y Bw>pl\y as pvoposcd by Arnold, hence the present action. The plain wire was subsequently barbed with a barbing machine, and would kt»ep out the large bullocks running ou adjoining land, fence was put as near as possible on the line aud agreed to by Brophy. William Arnuld, charged with erecting fence on Bropby's land, deposed — I asked Bropby to peg the line, but he did not appear ; started to fence from my buck peg to his back straining post, ns straight as I could range the line. It was absolutely necessary to po out of a straight line. The greater part of the fence was up when Brophy complained. He said it was on his land, and he thought his post was wrong too. Told him I could put wire on inside of fence, so as to leave room for Brophy's live fence. The fence was tound good enough for my cattle and Brophy's. Brophy gave me notice to fence some time ago. Subsequently, but previous to the summons, I proposed to have the matter put right by a surveyor. Brophy would not agree. To Mr. Hutchison, for plaintiff — 1 do uot know that the paper prodnced is a copy of the notice to fenc". The laud was cleared and posts were up as far as the first crenk wliph Brophy came and objected. Thought at the time that I was on the line. A month ago a bullock got on to my laud, bat not through the fence iv question. The agreement was Ibflt Bropby sbouM pat up the description of fence he desired, and I was to put tip the kind I wanted. To Mr. Caplen — It was in July I put up the fence, and the notice I received was subsequently. As far as verbal agreement the fence is correct, and I am atill open to hnve the fence altered according to the decision of arbitrators. Brophy first asked me to alter the fence, but I did not know of any action until I received the summons. It was in the courthouse that I reoeived tbe ootice to alter the fence. Arthur Slade assisted Arnold te fence. Brophy did not come to range line until nonrly all the posts were up. lie said he ciioagtic A.raoM'B fence was a little out. Arnold said il wire were put to his strainer it would be all right. Brophy did uot answer. The fence keeps cattle iv. The bull got into Brophj's. To Mr Hutclrsjn— Brophy did not come till nearly all the posts were np. Could see the pole at Brophy's when we Btarted, but had to deviate a little on account of iho nature of the groand. Went as straight as possible. The Bench snid that it appeared that Brophy did not range the line, did not object till almost all the posts were up, nnd then did not ruako any distinct objection, and would not agree to arbitration. Case dismifsed without costs. CIVIL CASKS. Garduer and Suttou v. Bashford. — Chum for .£l4 13s GJ. Judgment summons. It Hppeaiiug from evidence of defendant that he had not earned sufficient to keep his family ami pny the amouut claimed, the case was adjourned for throe mouths. Adamson and Pease v. McGouagle. — Claim of HI 8* 2>l. — Mr. Barton for plaintiff. — Judgment by default, aud costs £2 17*. lioyd nnd Co. v. McGonagle. — Clniui of £8 '2< f)J.— Judgment for plmutiiT Ly default, and coits £1 15s. Bite v. Caverhil!.— Claim of X'lOO.— Mr. Bnrton asked for the case to be restored to the list. — Mr. Caplen, for defendant, applied tor an adjournment. — Mr. Barton objected, on the grounds that no adjournment wie necessary for the production of evidence. — Mr. Caplen said the K.M. hid no jurisdiction until return of evidence fiom Wellington, and Mr. Bjllhiico could not fix a time for giving evidence timing the Hitting of Parliament ; henco tho delay. Evidence required was documentary and personal evideuce, which iho UndorlSecrelnry could not produce. — After argument of counsel, the 11 'I. ordered the case to be restored to thf list and braid next fourt day, unless defendant could show that Mr. Balance's evidence wne inateriil and would iiot be fltlmillpil by />)rti>)h)T. Adamson and Peaso v. John Hughes. — Dofendnnt pleaded that the account had been paid by his wife three or four years ago. — Judgment for amount, JLI 11M Gd, and costs Us.— Mr. Barton for plaintiff. Crocker v. Waller. — Contra account for butchei'b block. — It was bhown that the block, though ord red, was not delivered according to alleged arrangement. — JnJgment for plaintiff. Crocker v. Kemp. — Judgment for plaintiff by default. Wilson and Co. v. Meikle. — An application to take evidence of Mr. Meikle, to be sent to Tiinaru, wns granted. The court adjourned at 1 p.m.

KEATING'S COUGH LOZENGES cure Coughs, Asthma, Bronchitis. Medical testimony states that no other medicine is so tffectual in the cine of these dangerous maladies. One Lozenge alone gives relief, one or two at bedtime ensures rest. For relieving difficulty of breathing they are invaluable. They contain no opium nor any violent drug. Sold by all Chemists, Tins, Is. ljd- and 2s. 9d. each.