MAGISTERIAL.

Mataura Ensign, Issue 857, 23 February 1901, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

GOHE. TnuitiUAV, 21st Fkiuicahy. (Before Mr H. A. Stratford, 8.M.) George Wood wan charged at the instance of Stuck Inspector Field with failing to keep down rabbits on his property in the Wcudou Valley. In the course of his evidence, tho Inspector stilted that he had never soon a worse infected block of land. The rabbits were in undisturbed possession of tin property. It was a clear case of rabbit farming, as there was do other stock on tho place, llad seen dofeudanb frequently, and he had promised to do his best to eradicate the pest. For the defence llobert Swan, who resided on tie property, depo nd that in November threo tins of poison wero sent out to him by defendant, nnd he laid it all. Had poisoned the ground previously at the close of the trapping season. Cr ss-examined : Did not tell any of the neighbors that he made JU'.tj out of the trapping on tho property last season. Caught about 1500 rabbits on the ground, and was to trap it again this reason. The evidence of defendant went to sbo* that he was not living on the property, and considered the quantity of poison lie sent out was sufficient. There weie rabbits on the ground— not nearly so many now as when he took up tho property; mil her w ere there hi many as the Inspector stated. Defendant was lined XlO, with 17 s coals.

J. Heherr (Mr l'oppelwell) v I'. Belisky. Claim IHj on a judgment summons, ordered to pay foitliwith j in default two days' im piisonment.

Turnbull and Nicolson (Mr Indei) v. J. Beans. Claim £7 14s (id on a judgment summons. Ordered to pay forthwith ; in default tight days' iinprinontyient. A. Lyon (Mr Niohol) v. Matilda Brewer (Mr Inder). Claim £3 His !)d for work done. Plaintiff slated that he had contracted to paint defendant's house (labor only) for £ls. After the work was firiii-hed, he received a letter from the architect (Mr Marshall) complaining that he had not given the inside arid outside of all window s ishes and spouting and down pipes throe coats of paint as specified. Plaintiff had given all these parts three coats ; also four where asked for by Mrs Brewer.

Mr ludcr raised the nonsuit puint that as plaintiff had signed the specifications under which the architect was appointed to pass the work, he c ju Id not recover without the arc hi tect's certificate authorising the final payment to be made. Such certificate the architect refused to give.

Having heard Mr Nichol in reply, Ibe Magistrate upheld Mr Inocr's contention, stating that the only remedy in the case of a dispute with the umpire (in which position the architect stood) was in the Arbitration Court. He therefore had no jurisdiction to act in the ca-t; in its present state, and must nonsuit plaintilT with costs. The Court then rose.