LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVI, Issue 5495, 27 June 1879, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.— Thursday.

[Before E. C. B&rstow, Esq., EJT.I The ordinary weekly sitting, to hear and determine small debt claims, was held this Undefended Cases : Judgment tor Plaintiffs.—James W. Garrett v. H. Holloway, £5 83 2d; Henry Probßrt v. John Keir, £i 9s 6d. defended cases. The Mayor of Auckiisb v. thb chairman op the ponsonby eoad boakd —Claim £13 9a 6d. This was a claim to recover contribution of a, moiety of the expense of repairing the boundary road of the city and the district, half of the road being under the control of each local authority. It was agreed that the City Council should keep the Toad in repair, and the District Board held themselves bound to pay half the coat. The defence was that the piece of road on acconnt of which the present claim was made, was cut up for aspceial purpose, by which an extraordinary expenditure had been incurred ; that the Board could be held responsible only for half the cost of the ordinary repair of the road from year to year. Mr. J. B. Russell appeared for the Corporation, and Mr. Thorne for the Board. The only witness examined was Mr. Anderson, the City Surveyor, who proved the arrangement, and deposed to the repairs that had been made. Iα cross-examination, the witness said there had been a cutting made in the Ponsonby Road, for the purpose of getting "tilling" material for Collingwood and Angleseastreets. The cectre of the the road was made, but the Bides had not been yet formed. There was a part of the road, from Dickson's corner to Jakins's, which was for some time in a very soft state, but that part had nothing to do with the present claims The 'buss and •ther light traffic over the road was considerable, but it was not correct to say that tne city had passed nearly all the heavy traffic over the road. Judging by the facts within his own knowledge, the Ponsonby district, considering the work that was done for them, were exceedingly well-off under this arrangement. They ought to pay more. Mr. Thorne : They do not think eo. Witness : I think that the city ought not to be called on to pay more than one-third. Learned counsel on each side agreed to leave the faots deposed to in the hands of the Bench, without any comment. Mr. Barstow : It appears to me that this is a case where the agreement to pay moieties for the repair of a road should be maintained. I think the plaintiff is entitled to judgment. Judgment for plaintiff with costs £2 4s. Judgment Summonses.—Charles Langsford v. George H. Fletcher, £14 7s. The defendant did not appear. Ordered to pay £3 a month, or (in default) to be imprisoned for three months.—Harry Maxfield v. John Keir, £S 9a Bd.—The defendant did not appear. Ordered to pay £2 a month, or (in default) to be imprisoned for two months. Adjourned.—Holland andFortzer v. John Lamb, £19 (trover), William Henry Connell v. Alfred Durham (promissory note), £10 6a.