R.M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Independent, Volume I, Issue 60, 10 October 1885, Page 2

R.M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Before Jas. Booth, Esq., E.M., and two Native Assessors.) F R~i DA Y. Quinlan v. A. Wickens. Claim Z3B 15s, for board and lodging. Mr Brassey for plaintiff. Judgment for the amount and costs, £3 12s, File v. McDeavitt. Claim £2O 03 96. Mr Cresswell appeared for the plaintiff. The defendant was possessed of a cottage valued £3O, ana had sold his horses and carts for £l 2B about a fortnight ago. He had also received other monies recently. He had been here eightyears, and did not want to defraud his creditors. He had lost all his money over the bridge contract. Had to pay all his men wages, and had given Mr Adair an order for £2O. Mr Adair had asked him to give the order as something might go wrong with the bridge. The bridge would pay everybody. (Mr Cresswell: Yes, if it does not break loose. Laughter.) Mr Cresswell asked for an order, as it had been proved on the defendant’s own word that he had property. The Court made an order for payment in a fortnight, or 21 days’ imprisonment.

The defendant said he was being bamboozled out of his money. He had performed many contracts, and paid away large sums of money, and had always paid everybody. Now he had not a shilling left. Maria Morris v. J. Morris.

Claim £8 16s. Mr Brassey for the plaintiff and Mr Finn for the "defence. Maria Morris deposed that the defendant was her brother, but he was a very unnatural brother. The defendant had asked her to order the barbed wire which was mentioned in rhe account. She had to pay for it, and he had not paid her back. By Mr Finn—The wire had been used for fencing land which she had an interest in, but which had not passed through the Court. It was used to fence off the road, and keep her sheep in. The defendant told her to put the sheep there. She had asked that the wire should be returned to her. She had’ taken her sheep away and sold them. (Letter from plaintiff to defendant read, asking that the wire be rolled up, and left on the road.) She had an undivided interest in the land.

John Morris, the defendant, said the wire had been bought at the plaintiff's sole request. The fence had been put up to keep the plaintiff’s sheep from mixing with Scott’s. Had never received a bill or demand for the money until he had received the summons. Was looking after the sheep for the plaintiff.

By Mr Brassey—Was not a surveyor. Four coils of wire would fence about seventeen chains. Had been looking after the sheep. Only had one horse on the land. By Mr Finn—Received 70 sheep for /20 which his sister owed. Was looking after the interests of Betty and Maria. The plaintiff was now occupying the land which was fenced in. Judgment for the defendant, and costs £2 3s. Maria Morris v. Hirini Haereoxa and Another. Claim /io for trespass. Mr Finn said the claim involved a question of title to land, and consequently was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. He thought it would be a waste of time to produce any evidence. Mr Brassey said it was a case of cotenancy, and his clients had a clear case against the other co-tenant. If one co-tenant cut down a fence belonging to the other they had a perfect right to a remedy. Walter Gray, Registrar of the Native Land Court, testified to the ownership of the Ruangarehu Block. Maria Morri’s name was in the Block. Mr Finn called attention to the fact that Messrs Tucker and Evans were trustees to Maria Morris, and she herself had no interest in the block.

Maria Morris was residing on 30 acres of Ruangarehu, and the two defendants lived there also. Had been disturbed in her possession last August. Put up a fence which was broken down by the defendants. Poti and Hirini had part of the blocit. and had sheep

and cattle on it. The damage sustained by breaking down the fence was/10. By Mr Finn : The posts and part of the wire had been put up. Ten posts had been damaged. The ten posts did not cost /io, but there was her trouble. The posts were dug up and left on the ground. Had seen Peti dig up all the posts but one, and Hirini took up that one. She had no reason to ask defendants for permission to put the fence up. They wanted to put her off the ground. There was a dispute about the land. Mr Brassey objected to the view taken by his friend. Mr Finn thought that his friend objected to any view but his own. The witness here marked off on a plan the situution of the fence. Mr Finn contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to sue, as her right was vested in trustees. Judgment was given for the defendant with costs. Mr Brassey gave notice of appeal.