RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Lake County Press, Volume IX, Issue 479, 22 July 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TtTESDAT, 13lH JuiY. Before H. A. Stratford, Esq. R.M., W. Belton v. M. Houlihan; claim of £4 10s, damages to gorse fence. Plaintiff deposed that he held an agreement signed by W. Welsh, allowing him to keep a gorse fence on sections in block XXX, in the borough extension. The fence referred to was the same as that destroyed by defendant. The land on which the fence was belongs to defendant. At or before the time of the agreement being signed defendant offered him 5s per chain for the fence, and said it was the bouudary-line between Father M'Kay and himself. I declined to sell the fence. Defendant only cut the fence out about half-an-inch below the surface, as he hoped to see it grow again from the roots and so get a fence on the cheap, as well as fatten his pigs on it. The fence is worth £1 5s a chain, but I charged him £1 a chain. It was four feet high, and is the same fence as is referred to in the agreement between me and Mr "Welsh, but is on defendant's land. Cross-examined—l have only named the block on which the fence was, and not the sections. My right to the fence is shown in the agreement. Believe the land was advertised for sale by the Corporation, four months ago, but I did not buy any sections. By the Court.—l acknowledge the fence was on defendant's land. When I planted the gorse fence four years ago the land belonged to the Crown. Defendant became the owner of the land by purchase from the Corporation. Welsh gave me leave to remove fence off sections 3, 4, and 5. Cannot say why Welsh gave me leave to remove fence if it is on Houlihan's land. T. C. Johnson valued the fence at £1 a chain. Defendant deposed that he purchased sections 12, 13, and 14, block XXX, Arrowtown extension, from the Corporation ; and produced rent receipt. . About a fortnight ago warned plaintiff that he was about to plough the land, and that the gorse fence was on the section. He told me he had an agreement and would not shift it for three months. Gave plaintiff leave to shift the fence. Gave him three days to do so, and he refused. By the Court. —W. Welsh had nothing to do with the fence on my land. Only pulled down the feuce within my own boundary. J. P. Healey.—Am Town Clerk of Arrowtown. Prom the evidence giveu I conclude that the fence in question is on section 14, as marked on plan produced. The section is a long way from Mr Welsh's laud. The whole of the 45- chains is on Houlihan's land. The land was granted to the Corporation, and leased on the 13th March last for 21 years. His Worship said that Belton had trespassed on lands of the Crowa, from which the Crown could at any time have removed him witnout a niotneut's notice. He had no right to be there, and judgment would be for defendant, with costs lis. W. Jenkins v. J. Tyler.—No appearance. Struck out. L. H. Preston v. J. B. Neal.—Claim of £lO5, cash lent, dishonored acceptance, &c. Tne amount was reduced to £95 to bring it within the jurisdictioa of the Court. Plaintiff said defendant had promised to pay on several occasions, and had acknowledged the debt. Judgment was given for amount claimed, with costs 40s. An application for renewal of billiardlicense by Rebecca Bond at the Ballarat Hotel was granted.