RESIDENT, MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Lake County Press, Issue 49, 10 May 1872, Page 3

RESIDENT, MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Abbowiown, Monday, May 6. (Before R. Beet ham, Esq., RJf. : and W. Paterson, Esq., J.P.)

Cameron v. Shepherd—Claim for £6, value of a saddle sold and delivered. A set-off was pleaded, and a sum of £1 16s 8d paid into Court in full of all demands. Mr Barton for plaintiff. It appeared by the evidence of plaintiff and her daughter, a Mrs Greig, that the saddle was the property of Mrs Cameron ; that Mrs Shepherd had sail to Mrs Greig that she was in want of a lady's saddle, and Mrs Greig replied she thought her mother would sell hers. On this, Mrs Shepherd went to the house of Mrs Cameron, at Arthur's Point, and negotiated for purchase of the saddle. She bought the saddle for £6. Plaintiff's daughter, Mrs Greig, delivered the saddle to Mrs Shepherd, and afterwards called three or four times for the money, but was put off from time o time. "Ultimately, uefendant refused to pay at all, alleging that the saddle was bought in part payment of a debt due to him bv Mrs Greig. According to the daughter's version of the bargain, nothi g bad ever been said about a set-off. and she understood the sale as made by her mother, who had instructed her to get the money, or take out a summons against defendant.

The evidence of Mr and Mrs Shepherd weut to show the affair in a differ eat light. Mr Shepherd had gone to plaintiff's house to engage her boy to ride a hotse at the races, aod while there the conversation turned on her (Mr Cameron's) daughter. On mentioning that she owed him a debt, the mother said she was not aware of it. She had no ready ruouey to pay with, but offered her saddle in payment. This was accepted, and Mrs Greig delivered the saddle at his place. The purchasemoney was £5, and, after deducting Mrs Greig's account of £3 3s 4d he bad paid the balance into Court. Mrs Shepherd corroborated her husband's evidence, and stated that after she had been to Camerons Mrs Grieg came to her and said her mother was billing to let the saddle go in payment of the debt

The Magistrates thought this was one of those delicate affairs put into the hands of a lady for management, and, as was not unusual in such cases, it had been • verdone. It was the part of Mrs Shepherd to see that Mrs Cameron had ch,niged her mind about the terms of sale, and not take it solely on the word of Mrs Grieg. Besid s, Mrs Cameron could not be called upon to pay Mrs Greig's debts.—Judgment for plain iff, with costs, £2 Is, and Court fees, 13s. Field v. Butler—Action to recover £2O damages for illegally impounding cattle belonging to plaintiff. Mr Barton, who acted for plaintiff, before going into evidence would briefly state the case. On the 24th of April plaintiff received notice from the poundkeeper that three head of cattle belonging to him had been impounded by Mr Butler for trespass, and that 10s per head damages were claimed, and 15s for driviug—in all, 455. Evidence would prove that the fence round plaintiff's paddock was a most inferior one, and the charges excessive ; it was laid down by the Impounding Ordinance that the rates should be—for a cow, 2s; for a calf, Is, whereas defendant had charged 10» per head. The same Act also recited the fence which must be erected before cattle could be impounded and damages claimed. He would call K. E. Field, who deposed that on the 24ch of April he received notice that defendant had impounded three of bis cattle, and stating the amount claimed on them as £2 ss. Defendant's fence was a post and rail one. It was useless to prevent cattle from trespassing, as the posts were rotten and there was no support for the rails. Had repeatedly seen Butler repairing the fence in a sort of way—with staves of casks, &o. There was nothing to keep cattle out of the paddock, as the fence would fall by cattle rubbing against it, or even by a strong blast of wind. In fact, be considered the fence a trap Had asked Butler how he assessed the damage so high, and he replied the cattle had been in several times, and he had lumped for several trespasses. Had received previous notices from defendant as to his cottle trespassing, and had done his utmost to keep them off his lands. By Defendant—l have seen my cattle often in your paddock-. There would be no occasion for cattle breaking down the fence, as it would fall by their •eaning against it. You have before told me you would impound my cattle The manner in which I make* up the £2O damages claimed is for expenses, annoyances, &c, received from you from time to time. 1 paid £1 2s 6d to the poundkeeper.

Charles Low and R. Pritcbard gave evidence as to the nselissness of the fence as a means of protection against

trespass. The first-named winess said the fence had been erected.over fivb years, and that birch' pjsts w.»uld not stand more than three or four years. ! For the defeuce, Butler called Thomas M'Donnell, John Flynn and John Laxton, who gave testimony to the effect that the fence r >und defendant's paddock was as good as the ordinary run of fences in the district. They were not, however, prepared to swear it would keep all cattle out—such, for instance, as were on poor feed, and had once got a taste of the English grass in Butler's paddock. In giving judgment, the Bench said —Defendant in this action had elected to take his remedy under the Impounding Ordinance. The section in that Act was imperative as to the fence being a substantial one. It had been proved to the satisfaction of the Bench that defendant's fence was not a substantial one, and they therefore gave judgment for £2 2s 6d, with costs, £4 ss. But they desired to remark that hy the common law every person was held to be the custodian of his own cattle, and if they trespassed on land, fenced or unfeuced, damages could be recovered for the injury done; but if the person injured acted under the Im pounding Ordinance he must also act up to the Fencing Ordiuance. GoMston v. Pritchard Claim for £2O, damage doDe to goods by fire and water. The facts of the case are these: Defendant is having premises erected next to plaintiff's store. About the beginning of March Pritchard asked Goldston's permission to allow building material to be placed in his yards. This was granted, and among the material so placed were fifteen bags of unslacked lime. This lime was stacked close to Goldston's store, and by tone means water got under and set it on fire causing damage to goods to over the amount sued for. Plaintiff had asked defendant to send a man to value the damage, but he refused, saying the contractors were responsible, not he. Evidence was given by R. Frederick, storeman to Mr Pritchard, to prove that the lime had been taken delivery of on behalf of the contractor, and not the defendant.—Decision reserved for 14 days.