LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVI, Issue 5633, 5 December 1879, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

E. M. COURT.—Thursday. [B-.-fore J. E. Macdunatd, Esq., K.M.] Tue ordinary weekly sitting to hear and determine small debt claims, was lield this morning, and the following business disposed of :— Undefended Cases. (Ju<7gmeuts for plaintiffs.)— James P .King v. William Shaw, £29 Ss Gd ; Slone and Murray v. Samuel Dickson, £3 Sa Gd ; John Bennett v. Henry Sergeant, £12 179 SJ; Charles Major v. Mattlnw Grace, £1 Ss 6d ; the Same v. John E. Evans, £G 2s Gd ; Slone and Murray v. William Kirby, £7 17s 3d ; Edwin Carr v. John Sakey, £15 5s lOd. Adjourned.—J. F. Stewart v. William Johnston, £10 2s Gd ; H. L. Possenisfcie v. James Conway, £9 Gs 3d ; George Bright v. Nathaniel Stafford ; John Mullally v. Zachariah Vare, £G. Kamys and Foccrc,i r. Craig. — Claim, £2-t 17s. Mr. Hesketh for the plaintiffs, Mr. Tyler for the defendant. This was an action to recover damages for breach of an agreement. The pla ntiffs are bushmeu, and the defendant a settler on the Great Barrier Island, at Schooner Bay. The agreement was in effect that the defendant gave permission to the plaintiffs to a right of road across his land on condition that they drew his timber also to the beach. The following evidence discloses the nature of the alleged breach of agreement upon which the action was brought. Frank Ilauij'a said he and Foucica made an agreement with Craig that they would draw his timber down to the beach if be would allow them to go over his land, which lay between their bush and the sea. The witness and his mate took out his timber (firewood), and, iu order to enable them to do so, made a piece of road. They also made a bridge. On a Saturday the defendant asked them to take out some timber for him. He said he had a large schooner coming thai would require about 70 tons. Witness replied that the bullocks were tired, and wanted a "spell," and that ho would draw the wood for defendant on Monday. The defendant, thereupon, said he would fall a tree across the road to prevent the plaintiffs going over hia land. The witness claimed to have the right, under the agreement, to cross the defendant's land for two years. The defendant came and felled trees across the road, by which the plaintiff and his mate were prevented using the road, and also deprive 1 of the benefit of their bush land, to which the defendant had given them access under the agreement. The witness, when he saw the tree felled across the road, brought an estimate of the damage he sustained to the defendant, but the defendant said ho would allow them to carry no more wood over his land. Foucica gave in his testimony a general corroboration of the witness's evidence. The defence was that the breach of agreement was on the pait of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were to cart the timber when required. The defendant had a schooner coining for cargo, ;,nd they refused to draw the timber, ihey did not say on tho Saturday that the bullocks were tired, and they would draw it on the following Monday. Ramys said he would draw it in a week. Foucica said that they would not draw another stick, because the agreement was worthless—not being stamped. Defendent replied, "If the agreement is not good for you, iitither is it for me, and there is an end to it, unless you are prepared to fulfil your part." Defendeut therefore stopped them going over his land. Witnesses were called to corroborate both sides. John Mayall, Joe Gomoz, John Galloway, George De Thierry for the plaintiffs ; and they confirmed the general statements made. Mr. Tyler held that the

agreement, so far as the defendant was concerned, was in the nature of a promise, | revocable at any time, and therefore no action would lie against the defendant upon its revocation. There should have been some tender of a g r aut. Mr. Hesketh said the agreement was an easement, coupled with an interest, under which an action for damage on account of a breach of it would lie. His Worship : The moment you come to a question of title the jurisdiction is ou-ted. But it appeared to the court that one or other of the plaintiffs was induced to put an end of the contract, by referring to it as uustamped, and saying he would not do anything more under it. There was no motive to induce the breach of the contract on the part of the defendant, for he got his wood drawn nnder it for nothing. There was no question of title, but there was a contract to give a right-of-way ; but there was no tender of a deed, and even if there had been the plaintiffs would have been bound to perform all they were required to do under it before they could bring their action. Mr. Hesketh elected to take a nonsuit. Nonsuited accordingly. Potter v. Ra.mys and Foucica.—Claim, £19 3s. Mr. Tyler for the plaintiff; Mr. S. Hesketh for the defendants. This was a claim for 30 days' wages at 5s a day. The defendants put in a set-off, consisting of various items—for boa-d and for various articles sold by the defendants to ths plaintiff. His Worship give judgment for pla : ntiff for 9s 6d.