RESIDENT MAGISTBATE'S COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume I, Issue 3, 7 March 1866, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTBATE'S COURT.

[Before J. Poynter, Esq., E.M. This Dat. clvii, cases. „;- .;" • . '. .- ■ In the case of J. E. Edwards v. K. Walcot, claim £'* 4s. 9d., and the same v. T. Batchelor, claim £1 14s. 3d., judgment was given for the plaintiff, for the aimunt claimed. Knyvett and Greenwood v. Leadam. — ThisVajs an action to recover. £53 15s. 6d. It was a very complicated case, and the Magistrate suggested it should be referred to Mr. Albert Pitt for arbitration. To this Mr. Adams, for plaintiff, and Mr. Kingdon, who appeared for defendant, consented. ; Franzenv. Gird wood. — The plaintiff had. just received a cheque for the amount claimed, and the case was postponed till the 19th instant, to ascertain if the cheque would be honored. H. H. Stafford v. Alfred Hakley. ■ To recover the sum of £14 18s. 9d., for deiendant's share of fencing in land at". Stoke; "and £1 6s. 6d., for repairs to a chimney" which was blown down in a house occupied by the plaintiff and of which the defendant was the owner. The plaintiff stated that he put-up a dividing fence - on land adjoining the defendant's at Stoke, about 19 chains in length,, which cost him at the rate of 30s. a chain, of which he had charged the defendant onehalf. The fence was put up in 1863, and in 1865 the defendant agreed that the plaintiff should deduct £15 from. the rent till the fencing was measured. The defendant agreed to pay his share of the fence, but afterwards sued for the £15 for rent and recovered, because the set-ofi was not allowed. When told that the top of the chimney was blown off. defendant said it was no business of his. Plaintiff repaired the chimney, and now.' sought to recover^ the amount expended. An agreement was put in which stated that the plaintiff was to keep the house in, good • repair. . . . . For the defence it was urged that Mr. Cundy was the original owner and occupier of the land, and that the fence was put up two years before the plaintiff canae into possession.. No notice had been given of the intention to fence, or consent to pay for it, as the plaintiff had stated. By the agreement the plaintiff was bound to.keep the house in repair. The defendant had paid the previous owner of the land for the fence now charged for, several chains of which were on the plaintiff's own land. In fact, the fence was not a proper one at all ; a great portion of it being open to dispute. The Magistrate said it -was impossible to understand the case without a plan of the ground, and no evidence had been given to prove that any demand had been made in writing. He would recommend the .plaintiff to withdraw the summons and commence de.7iovo. - Mr. Adams, for plaintiff, contended that his ■ case was clear, and he Avas not willing to withdraw the summons. Plaintiff was, therefore, non-suited. The Magistrate thought plaintiff could not recover for the chimney. Mr. Kingdon appeared for, the defendant.