OPUNAKE. R.M. COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume IX, Issue 1786, 22 November 1887, Page 2

OPUNAKE. R.M. COURT.

(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENTS.) The periodical sitting of tbe court wu held on Thursday, the 17th, before C. E. Rawson, Esq., R.M., when the following cases were heard. Elten Aikman applied to the court to have her husband, Wni. Aikman, bonnd over to keep the peace. The plaintiff accused the defendant of striking her and otherwise illtreating her, recently at Pihama. In support of her cane she . called a witness and her two children, who did not corroborate her evidence, and the children stated that they bad never seen tbe defendant ill treat their mother, and he was always kind to them. The > R.M. remarked that the children were ;' well cared for and kept, and it appeared the defendant did not illtreat them, and he advised the plaintiff to go home, as it seemed to him that her passionate temper was the cause of the trouble. W. Pearce v. T. R. Exley.— Claim £5, for loss of grass through trespass of cattle for three weeks, for fencing removed and for repairing dividing fence. Defendant paid 14s into court for fencing. The plaintiff leased from the Hawera County Council a reserve at Pihama adjoining a section in the occupation of defendant and of which the defendant bad previously had tbe use by permission; and be had erected a fence of two plain and two barb wires, with four or five posts to tbe chain, witu^ stakes partly on the road line. The' plaintiff stated the paddock was fenced when he tendered for it, and be received intimation on the 25th of August that his tender was accepted. He then gave notice to defendant to take bis stock off the land, which defendant stated be did on the sth of September. Plaintiff bad erected over nine chains of fencing at 9s per chain to replace fencing removed by defendant, and be paid a man for three days at 7s per day : repairing tbe sod bank destroyed by the defendant's cattle, the plaintiff having on a certain day driven out 14 head of cattle and horses, including two bulls, which be thonght were the defendant's; and he considered that, as the oattle trespassed in the paddock through the default of the defendant in removing tbe fence and that such cattle damaged the bank by horning it down, he had a good claim against : defendant.— Defendant stated that he had < never once seen any cattle of his horning the bank, down. Some of the cuttle wen his and one bull. He considered that he bad a right to take the fencing away, as he had erected it purposely on tbe road so that be could remove it. Defendant considered 6s would be a fair charge for the grass, as plaintiff had offered him the paddock for 80s per mcntb, and afterwards at a less sum. The R.M. stated that the plaintiff could not prevent the defendant from taking the fence away, which was on the road. That was a question between defendant and the* local authority. Judgment for plaintiff for 16s for grazing and damage by cattle to fences, in addition to tbe amount paid into court ; each party to pay half costs. * B. Viokery v. Whatarau. — This was an action brought, to recover £6 paid by plaintiff to defendant for a contract. The defendant obtained a contract through applying to the Native Minister (Mr. Ballance) for road work on the Watteika road through native lands, the motive being to give employment to the natives. Whatarau, it appears, sub-let a former contract to a balf-caste, and he again tried the same thing with tbe second contract, this time selling it for £6 to plaintiff. The plaintiff being a European, the natives interested objected, and the defendant was not allowed to sub-let tbe contract ; hence tbe plaintiff sought to recover the amount paid. Judgment for plaintiff for £6 and costs, to be paid within two months. November 19.