ALLEGED TRESPASS OF THE LAND OF THEMANGANESE COM PANY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 5994, 2 February 1881, Page 6

ALLEGED TRESPASS OF THE LAND OF THEMANGANESE COM PANY.

mora for trespass by cattle on of the Manganese mines at Russell Letcher claimed to hold possession of ■ land by virtue of a lease granted tniiV i 6 Captain Phillips, in Auf^ contention raised by the the lease was invalid on the eromS Jw Captain Phillips, the late Manganese Mines' Company, ws, nr ? the powered to grant a lease. Captain Phn? 11 * was called as witness, for the purpose d proving his ability to lease, aud pKS tl that purpose a power of attorney, wlSh £ held under the late company, as also a W trom Mr. John Tucker on hk takW ov Sf property from the late company, wffich£» he contended confirmed the powers he w sessed under the company's of aC ney, and urged that bccaWhe had, time of the company, leased a certain alw ment, situate m Auckland, then in th 2" possession (producing some books of account to uphold such statement), hehadperfeSS to lease property for Mr. Tucker iithoaS special instructions for so doice Mr OsitnJF here stated that Mr. Tuckef had Captain Phillips no power of attornf^S Mr T , 13 ?' 1 Capt™ Pbillips Mr Tucker referred to quite a differed matter. Mr. Cooper then produced aIS from Captain Phillips to the secretary ofthl late !New Zealand Manganese Mines Com pany, m which Captain Phillips statedS terms that would be acceptable to him if he continued in the company's employ, dated Auckland 18/9. These terms were accepted by the said company, and on the purchase of the property by Mr. Tucker, him on the letter produced by CantH» Phillips, that Mr. Tuckcr had at no time instructed Captain Phillips to lease the C! perty and such a ridiculous lease to a man -ho, from circumstances that had come under the notjce of Mr. Tucker, he £1 ordered to be discharged from the mini would never have been ratified by him' Mr. Cooper further contended that if tain Phillips could substantiate his plea of holding power to lease Mr. Tucker s property, that Captain Phillips had omitted to report to Mr Tucker the executionof document, although from the time of the date of such document to the arrival of Mr Cooper in Auckland to take charge of Mr" ? UC^L S property, two English mails, via San Francisco had left Auckland, by which mail Captain Phillip was supposed to report all matters concerning the business in trusted to his charge. The magistrate, on perusing the lease, remarked that it was capable ot bearing many different constructions fand as to the power of attorney granted by the late company to Captain Phillips, he could n °!u!t m 11 authority to lease ordeal with the surface land at all, and on reference to precedents bearing on the case, could find nothing but what confirmed him in that opinion. He therefore pronounced the lease to be an invalid document, but as there was no legal fence to the land, inflicted a nominal fine of Is and costs in the case of each summons.

. - Tll j case against Mr. Cooper, for loss sustained by Mr Letcher, laid at £5, by reason j j IS , ee P having been driven out of the paddock, was then gone into. Mr. Letcher deposed that he had seen Mr. Cooper drive his sheep out of the paddock, and that he had recently found two dead, which loss he attributed to the manner in which they had been driven here. Witnesses for plaintiff were called who deposed that they had not only seen but assisted Mr. Cooper at his order to drive the sheep out of the paddock, but had never witnessed any ill-usage. This Mr Cooper freely admitted, and the magistrate, without any consideration, dismissed tne summons.

Phillips v. Cooper.—This was a summons brought by Captain Phillips against Mr. Oocper for the trespass cf a grey mare and leal on lus leasehold property, in close proxSPft to the estate of Mr. Tucker. Captain hillips called E. Mollard as witness, to prove that he had drawn Mr. Cooper's attention to the fact of the animals being on such property, and that Mr. Cooper had instructed him to drive the same °V\ Mr " Coo P er bein g called, he ad mitted the truth of the witness's statement, together with the assertion that the animals were the property of Mr. Tucker, and consequently the captain had sued the wrong man. ihe Magistrate said he had no other alternative but to non-suit the plaintiff, and remarked. in concluding the cases, that it was fortunate for Captain Phillips his counsel from Auckland had not attended, for, looking at the facts of the case, his attendance could m no way have altered his decision, and would materially have increased the expenses.