RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 9117, 16 May 1891, Page 5 (Supplement)

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

FuiDAr, Ma? 15. (Before Mr E. H. Carew, R.M.)

Judgment was given for the plaintiffs, with costs, in the following undefended eases:— fflollison, Mills, and Co. (for whom Mr J. Macgregor appeared) v« Andrew Smith, claim £5 10s 10d for goods supplied; Dnnedin Brewery Company (for whom Mr Sim appeared) v. Wm. Stewart (Fahiatua), claim £72 13s 4d, on a bill and cheque; Equitable Insurance Association (in liquidation) v. Wong Kum Yon (Cromwell), claim £25 13a 8(3, on a dishonoured cheque and calls due on shares; Smith and Smith v. W. H. Sebley, claim £3 2s 63, for goods supplied. Peter and Donald Ford v. Charles Clark.— Claim £20, for the trespass of sheep and cattle on plaintiffs' farm at Greytown. Mr Eraser for plaintiffs, and Mr Sim for defendant. This case, partly heard on th 3 11th inst. was now resumed, Mr Frnser calling further evidence on behalf of plaintiff. John Bruce, farmer, said that he had at various times scan from 20 to 100 sheep bearing Clark's brand in plaintiffs' paddocks.— Peter Ford gave evidence as to trespass on several occasions. He could not keep the bullocks out. Twice he counted 28 head in one mob feeding on the potatoes and turnips. Ho did not think that £20 would more than cover the loss he and his brother had sustained. He allowed £4 for the damage to the potatoes. To Mr Sim: He calculated £1 10d loss on account of the cattle going off their milk by refusing to feed off grass made dirty by the trespassing sheep; and he believed that ho was allowed to charge 3d a day for the trespass of each sheep.—Donald Ford also gave i evidence.—Mr Sim said that the evidence as to damage was exceedingly unsatisfactory. Plaintiffs at first set up that great havoc had been done to a stack, but their own witness had said that the damage was so trifling that he could not assess it; and now that that allegation was not sustained, the snt up what was practically another case. Under all the ciroumstsnces, the ■ damages should be only nominal.—His Worship: When a man allows his cattle and sheep to

trespass on s-vernl occasions, he cannot expect to get off with xiomiuhl daaiugts. Charles Clark, defendant, sai:l that tbe cause of. tho sheep getting on to Ford's place was Ford's bull scratching a hole under tho fence. He sent a man to mend the fence and hHd the sheep shifted. On the second occasion they got through a gap in the fence. The bullocks also went through a gap. The damage to the turnips was very trifling, and about 5> would cover the loss to the potatoes. Conscientiously, he believed that £2 would pay the damages done by all the trespassing.— John Williamson also gave evidence.—Hia Worship: There have been a large, number of trespasses, and defendant hone3tly admits that they have taken plnce. The only question is as to the amount of damage, 'i'fco i-.vihuaeo for the plaintiffs is very general, and also very indefinite. Oo the other hand the defendant himself: is- not in a position to say how much damage took place. I must, therefore, to 6ome extent, make a sort of gusss as to the amount of dKmsge. As I have said before, if a man allows his cattle and sheep to trespass time after time, he must wot expect the damages to be sssessed very finely. I thiuk that plaintiffs are entitled to £8. The costs were £4 15s 6d. Edmond Dwyer v. Thomas Coughlan.—Claim £16 15s, balance of account alleged to be due for wages.—Mr Sim appeared for plaintiff, and Mr W. Macgregor for the defendant.—After evidence, judgment was given for the plaintiff for £5 15s 9d, and costs.