RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Issue 660, 5 July 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Qceenstown, —June 28th, 1871. (Be fore Dr Douglas, J.P., and B. Hallenstein, Esq., J.P.) Malaghan v. Maclarn.—An information that the defendant had maliciously destroyed a gate at complainant's paddock, Shotover Gorge. The defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr Barton for complainant. Mr Turton for defendant Mr Turton before the case proceeded rawed two objections. The first, that the information should have recited the woids " a creditable witness" as required by the Malicious Injury to Property Act, 1867 ; secondly that the information should have contained a count for damages, whereas, all that was alleged was that a gate had been destroyed. He therefore submitted that the information was bad, and the case should be dismissed. Mr Barton agreed that it was unnecessary to put in the damages in the body of the information, or even to lay one in writing at all Mr Turton lepliedthat as complainant had elected to proceed by a written instrument they must stand or fall by it The Bench overruled the objection! Mr Barton in opening the case said he was not instructed to proceed for damages, but that the object of the action was to show defendant that he could not interfere with other persons' property. Mr M. J. Malaghan produced his title, being an agricultural lease transferred from Mr Wilson Gray to himself. Defendant came on the day in question, an ! asked him (witness) to see him (Maclarn) break down his gate. He did not go then, but Mr White told him that deiendant had broken into his paddock. Cross-examined —Cannot remember that I received notice from defendant that he claimed the property, though he a few months ago ploughed up a couple of furrows. Forgave him on that occasion. Was not present when Mr W. Gray made application for the 17 acres in question. Believe Mr Manders acted for Mr Gray. Did not know until after the lease was transferred from Mr W. Gray to himself that Maclarn claimed the ground. Will swear that Es i.nate the damage at 20s. E. White deposed—Did not see defendant injure the gate. He broke a link of the chain, and the padlock fell on to the ground. Mr Turton, for the defence, submitted that the complaint must fall to the ground, as no destruction of gate had been proved. The damage done was to a link of a chain. He further contended that defendant had not properly proved his title Mr Baiton replied, and the Bench overruled the objections. Another argument of some length ensued as to the right of Mr Turton to call witnesses as to a faulty title. That gentleman quoted Judge Johnston's work, folio 129.

Dr Douglas thought that defemitnt was admitting the title of the plaintiff They would hear the defence, however. Mr M'Larn was put in the witness J Mr Barton questioned whether be examined as a witness in 9tch a case, and quoted Judge Johnston* [Mr Barton had in a case formerly examined a defendant charged upon an information of a more serious offence.] The Bench decided to hear .the case out W. Maclarn deposed that he boughi.tbe land from Mr Beethatn. It was about 50 acres. Paid the fees demanded, £29. Got about 35 acres. Did not get this 17 acre* Remember Mr ManderS appearing as agent for Mr Gray. Objected to Mr Gray's application. Mr Warden Beetham said ne would remit the matter to the Government for their decision. Afterwards saw plaintiff, when he was fencing in the ground. Told him he was fencing in his (witness's) property, and that he did it at his own risk. The land so fenced in ma part of that he purchased. (Mr Turton again urged that the Justices bad no jurisdiction, as a question of title was in dispute, but his objection was overruled) He broke the chain of the gate. The damage done did not exceed ss, if that Did not touch or injure the gate or the land. To the Bench—Never succeeded in getting a title for the land The survey books would prove that it was his property. R Burns had written for defendant a letter to Mr W. Gray, warning him not to fence in the land Mr Barton said he desired to call evidence in reply, but the Bench said they were satisfied about the point of title. Mr Turton thought the other side might first let him finish his defence. R. Beetham, Warden, deposed that the land in question was part of that he claimed under his application for 50 acres or thereabouts. The Government decided to transfer certain lands from him to defendant Received £29 Is 3d from the defendant for the money be was out of pocket The defendant posted fresh applications. He did not apply forthis 17 acres. Defendant appeared and objected verbally to Mr W. Gray's application. Defendant had not applied for this particular section. Defendant said he was misinformed by the Survey Department, that he (Maclarn) was told that he (Beetham) had not applied for this piece of land. The surveyor (Mr Spence) at the hearing had denied M'Larn's allegations; and stated that he was pointed out this section of land, but said he did not want it The defendant elected what land he would apply for; afterwards Mr Gray took up land The land applied for would have been useks? without this section. Transferred all the land the present defendant had requested Mr Maclarn had written several most insulting letters to the Government, and had further, on several occasions, addressed him in an insulting manner about the matter. He was willing to transfer the 50 acres to the defendant, but he elected to take 35 acres. The Bench declined to hear any further arguments, and ruled that in breaking the lock or gate belonging to another person defendant had acted wrongly, as he admitted the fence was complainant's. He would, therefore, be ordered to pay 10s, or repair the injury, and further be fined 20s. Mr Barton forgot lo ask for costs un'il after the Court was adjourned, when they were refused June 30th, 1871. Malaghan v. Lam Bang.—l2) 7a 10d, goods sold and delivered—Mr Barton for plaintiff. Defendant admitted the debt The plaintiff offered to accept 20s pr week. This was refused, and immediate execution was granted; default of pajjpent, 3 mouths' imprisonment Haines v. Anderson.—lis, shoeing horse —Settled out of Court Same v. Same.—Abusive languageSettled out of Court Smith v. Barkleman.—Upper Shotover case—Settled out of Court Same v. Mackenzie.—Assault—lt appeared that both parties were neighboring miners. That the complainant thought that the defendant had broken into his hut, and stolen a keg of grog therefrom. Several witnesses were examined, but, beyond the plaintiff none of them could depose to a blow being struck, and all said ic could not have been given without their knowledge. The Court held that it was a very paltry case to bring men down in the midst of winter, from such a distance There seemed to be no quarrel of any moment between the parties, though it was admitted the defendant and others were more or less under the influence of liquor, and had raised his hand but not struck complainant He (Smith) evidently wished by this charge to obtain a punishment inflicted upon defendant, who he thought had broken into his tent He had not taken the proper course. Case dismissed. Each party to pay its own costs. Inch v. Browne and Others.—This case was further adjourned for a week, the evidence taken at Dunedin not having been received as yet July 3rd, 1871. P. O'Lougb, who had been locked up from the pievious night on a charge of drunkenness, was brought up and fined ss, or to suffer 6 hours imprisonment -