R.M. COURT

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume VIII, Issue 2026, 2 December 1886, Page 3

R.M. COURT

Wednesday, Dec, 1, 1880. ('Before T. Horton, Esq., J.P.) A VAORANT, John Milton, alias John Herman ]{. recbner, charged whii ha vinpr no visible means of support, did not appear. Set"t White said the man had been abouMhe district for some time begging. Evidence was given by Constable Sherry and J. S. Derbyshire proving the charge, and a ?< nterce of three months’ imprisonment with hard labor was inflicted, IIVE-LAW CASE. bye-law case, in which C. Redfern t7»B charged with driving round a eorner at otlur than a walking pree, was adjourned for a week. A LITTLE SQUAIiULE. It. J. Mann was charged with maliciously breaking poplar trees on the property of Luke N. Nattrass, the trees being valued at 15. Sergt White conducted the prosecution, and MrMcNabappeared for the defendant. Luke N. Nattrass, the complainant, said defendant came on to his property at about 2 o’clock on the morning of the lOtti Nov. a: d wilfully destroyed a number of voting poplars. When witness (X| outdated with him the defendant st/i ck him several times. The trees weie planted between two and three years ago and stoed nine inches inside i he boundary, between the properties of the complainant and the defendant. Maria Na'trass, wife of tho last witness deposed to seeing the defendant on their land at 2 o’clock on the morning in question. Her husband went out and tlur was a squabble and she saw defendant with his hand on her husband s thioat. She ran out call ng out, '‘What are you doing ; are yen going to kill my husband ?” Defendant r«plied “I’d do the si me for you if 1 could.” Witness ran, at her husband’s request, for someone rs a witrrssnnd Mr Button came and discovered blood on her husband’s face and be also raw the damsge that had been done. Defendant told her husband if l.c w, u ’d come ctewn to the river bed ho would do for him there where there would te no witnesses Defendant wa u on plaintiff’s propeily when bed stroyed the trees. He said he would not have ill. m there. Nelly Natl dus, a daughter of the las' w it mss, give coirohi native, evidence. '1 hetnas Evan’s, gardener, gave prof' * si'n 1 evidence ns to the value of the popin's. Two years’ growth would be worth from Gd to Is each. Cross-examined by Mr M’Nab—The roots of two year old poplars wc uld travd some dis ! ><nee—five or six teet. The Touts could be out wi hout any iojnry to the tries. Small uc s Won d not destroy 111. piwcr of H e mil ; larg.- trees did. Hairy So' < i . < rp-n.i r, r. memberel being culled and going to the ilainlifl’s houso in Hie n idule of tie night, He mw plamtiff and d. ff.dant in the garden, quariciting and lie also some six or eight trees b'oken down. By t'e Court—The partii ? were on Nll’triiSb’ g.oti"d. 'l'lii4 was Mi" case fir flie plantiff. Mr McN *ti ■ aid this was a neighbors quarrel; the parties bad bicn before the C urt on a pr \iors occasion. The popl.us wer a nui auce overhanging defendan ’s ground, ami th i latter iia.l a legal right to pull them ilov.u from bis own side. He c*lled 1

Robert Good worth, who deposed that he slept in a shed on defendant’s pro erty eh ee to 'he fence When the wind blew the trees were a great annoyance ren lering (l ep imporsible. On the momiug in question rhe defendant reached home about two o’clock. He was perfectly sober. He saw plaintiff trying to drag defmdan through the fence. Cioss-examined by Sergeant White The defendant does not sleep in the shed with me. I don’t know wlnt occurred before I got up. I heard someone hi caking the trees but heard no disturbance. it. J. Mann, the defendant, said lie reunited home early on the morning in question and hearing the noise made by the trees he walked down his side and pulled down the branches overhanging his property. Plaintiff came out and tried to drag witness through the fei c , tearing his coat (produce.’,) in the attempt. Next morning witness walked along his fence and pulled down a 1 the trees overhanging his property. Jas. Stanley Derbyshire, garden-r, knew the poplars in question, they overhung defendant’s property. Poplars were very detrimental to tlie soil. Mr McNab contended that the information must be dismissed, becnti e, as a matter of law, no one had a right to grow trees so as to overhang a neighbor’s property. Tim Court asked how long the trees had been planted, and whether any com plaint had beea made by the defendant as to the position of the trees ? The defendant replied that the trees had been planted between two and three year 3. He did not remember ever making a formal complaint, but there had b en rows over the matter. The Court thought there was a gieat conflict of evidence. Nattrass in plant, ing poplars so close to his boundary seemed to have contemplated annoying his neighbor. I lie defendant, it seemed to the Court, had a legal right to pull down the trees which were a nuisance to him. The case would be dismissed. The Court then adjourned.