Local Intelligence.

Lyttelton Times, Volume X, Issue 609, 8 September 1858, Page 5

Local Intelligence.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. EXTENDED JUEISDICTION. Christchurch, Sept. 2. At the sitting of the Court to-day there were as usual a number of actions for the recovery of debts, which were all undefended. The only case of importance was PEKCIVAL V. DOBSON. This was an action brought by Mr. W. H. Percival, of Dyer's Bay, against the Provincial Engineer, for that " he did on or about, (he. months of August, September, October, and November, 1856, enter upon certain lands then in tlie occupation of the plaintiff, ;mj break down the fence on the said land, and did dig or cause to be dug, a deep cutting through and over the said land, thereby admitting cattle and other trespass thereon, to tlio damage and injury of the plaintiff." Damages were laid at £30. The circumstances under which the demand were brought, having reference to the laying out of the Governor's Bay road on a line different from that oi'iginally reserved, and its formation in parts over private lands without a previous purchase or a definite contract, have been more than once before the public; and it will be recollected by most of our readers that the Ordinances passed by the Provincial Council in 1557 to meet this and similar cases were disallowed by the General Government. Mr. Percival, the plaintiff in this case, had previously brought an action against the overseer of the road party, but was unsuccessful; and accordingly commenced the present action against the Provincial Engineer, as the party directing the operations. Plaintiff proved the defendant's entry upon his land, and the destruction of a portion of the fence round it under defendant's order; stating also that on asking an explanation of the proceedings, he had been told that in proportion to the damage done compensation would bo given by tho Government. Plaintiff's statement further was that a cutting had been afterwards made through his land by order and under the superintendanco of defendant; that compensation had been frequently demanded, but was always met by an evasive reply. And, on crossexamination, that he had been given to understand that the old road would bo given up to him, with compensation for the extra amount

required for the new road, and that the road in question was the property of his wife, with a life-interest to himself.

Mr. Dobson, Provincial Engineer, defendant in the case, being examined, stated his opinion that the plaintiff hail sustained no darnn«-e whatever; that his land was tiot fenced in "it the time specified, being open to the old road ; that the new road was positive benefit to the property, and took only the most unavailable portion of the soil, whereas the abandoned road passed over the best part, and even over the plaintiff's garden, in which a portion of the road was included by a fence, rendering plaintiff liable to the inconvenience of having to remove the garden and fence. Plaintiff, after hearing that the Government was going to bring in a bill to the Council to authorise the land to be taken on payment of compensation, acquiesced in the further proceedings. Defendant acknowledged that the cutting in question was made by his directions.

Thomas Hughes, overseer of the road-party, being examined, stated that the fence alleged to have been broken down remained whole till the cutting was finished, and then, being an obstacle to the use of the road by the public was removed with plaintiffs permission; thought the land occupied by the new road might he ploughed but not cultivated to advantage on account of its steepness ; it had not been cultivated when the benching on the line was formed. The Court, after summing up the facts adduced in evidence and the arguments on both sides, said the questions for its decision were, first, —was the plaintiff precluded, by the agreement admitted to have been made, from recovering damages in the present action ; second, was the defendant the person against whom the action should have been brought; and, third, what was the damage actually inflicted. The first question the Court decided in the negative, on the ground that the agreement had been voided by the defendant himself, who had failed, within a reasonable time, to carry out his part of the contract, and provide for the plaintiff the compensation promised him. The second question must be decided in the affirmative. The defendant was the only person whom the plaintiff knew in the matter, and upon whom ! the evidence fixed any responsibility. If he had really acted upon orders from his superiors, he would, of course, be indemnified; if not he ought to bear the consequences of his own act 3. The amount of damage which. could be taken into consideration in the present action was, howevei-, exceedingly trifling. The court went through the several items of plaintiff's claim, and rejecting most of them as inadmissible in the present action, said that the ouly damage it could now consider was that caused by the removal of earth by the cutting the plaintiff's land for a distance of 22 chains, and that for this, a sum of 40s. would be ample compensation. Judgment for plaintiff, for 40s. and costs.

The plaintiff conducted his own case; Mr. Duncan appeared for defendant.

Lyttelton, Sept. 6, police v. catox.

To-day, a charge being1 brought against J. H. Caton, landlord of the Canterbury Hotel, for permitting a chimney in his house to get on fire, the Court fined him 205., and the Resident Magistrate announced that in future all such cases would be dealt with strictly by the police, and would be liable at his hands to the highest legal penalty, viz, 405..