KAIPARA QUARTERLY SESSIONS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 5998, 7 February 1881, Page 6

KAIPARA QUARTERLY SESSIONS.

January 2S. Mr. Clendon, R.M., paid his first visit to the district, and presided. His clear apprehension of tlie nature of the cases, his kind considerate manner towards the litigants, and his integrity of judgment, made a most favourable impression. Great sympathy was .felt for his temporary indisposition, owing to the fatigues of travelling, and he appeared to suffer severely while lie transacted Court business. Messrs. S. Yates and R. H. Matthews were present, and there was also a full attendance of Native Assessors. The Clerk of the Court:, Mr. G: Kelly, immersed in duties; and Constable Hutchison, of Mangonui, attended.

T , f • w - Reid (Claimant) v. R. M. Houston, Lxeccttiox Crkditor.—lnterpleader ease. Claim, £10. [The result is given in our -Mangonui correspondent's letter.] Reid v. right.—This case arose from the preceding. Illegal seizure and injury to the above horse by Wright, who acted as ,'il . Claim, £12 13s. It was proved that \V right rode the horse and produced a sore back, which rendered liim unfit for use for a time. Judgment for plaintiff, £1 and costs. —J. A. Subritzsky y. Stanton.—Trespass. Nonappearance of plaintiff. Costs, £2 10s. —There "was a dispute in a pig case between the natives as to whether the same had a curly tail or a straight one.—Marsh Te Huhu v. Reid.—Trespass of sheep. Claim, £19 19s. There was a strange contradiction in this ease, rendering it by the evidence almost impossible to maintain it. Plaintiff and witnesses swore that the fence of the cultivation was a good " Maori fence" constantly in repair, and six feet high, and the entrance was never left open, and yet the action for habitual trespass of sheep in this cultivation. Mr. Reid, however, decided judgment on the case by admitting the trespass, but showed that the damage sustained was trivial, and that he had occasionally signified his readiness to compensate for the damage on its being properly valued. Judgment for plaintiff', £2 and costs. This concluded the business.—[A Correspondent, February ° ISSI.] '