RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 2167, 16 August 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

__ — ♦ — — I (Before J. I'uvnbull, Esq., R.M.) Friday, August 13. Wi'liam Thomas, a young man, was charged under a summons i?siu*d at the instance of Constable Mcc, with being drunk nnd disorderly, and with usin« obscene language on the public streets ->t 1 o'clock on the morning of the 7th inst. The accused, who was defended by Mr Wade, pleaded not guilty. Inspector Fox called three witnesses each of whom was cross-examined by Mr Wude, who in hi- turn called Paul Thomas, tho father of the accused. Alter hearing the evidence, which was voluminous, His Worship ord-jrod the accused to undergo for the first offence a fine of 10.-, or 4S hours' imprisonment, and lor the second 40s, or 14 days' imprisonment. Paul Thomas, under a summons, was accused of disturbing the public peace by talking in a loud and disorderly manner, and by ringing the door-bell of the Club Hotel on the morning of the 7th inst. Accused was defended by Mr Wade, ancl plpsided not guilty. Evidence having beeu heard for both side?, His Worship thought the case clear against the accused, whom ho sentenced to pay a fine of 40s; ia default 14 daj, s' imprisonment, Buchanan v. Quhi. — Mr Harvey for the plaintiff, and Mr Wade for the defendant. The plaintiff sued for the recovery of &i 10s on account of dam x^o done by the defendant to a fence erected by the planliff on section 34, McMaster's Estate. It appeared that seven years ago a man named Charles K- -id, on leaving the ditriet for the North Island gave the plaintiff nominal possession of a section on condition that plaintiff kept the> fences in order. It also appeared that he had given a similar privilege to Michael Quin, now deceased. Aboat three years after tteid's departure, Qain knocked down the fence dividing his section from Keic's, and continued to 1 utilisu Reid's section. Smce then Quia had been iv possession oj" Eeid's

section, for which Buchanan paid the rates. Before dying Quin arranged to sell his own property to Mr Harper, and to give his right of possession of Reid's section to his brothir, tha present defendant. After Mi.duiel Q tin's death Mr Harper and the plaintiff a^i-en I to divide Reid's section hctvveeu the v, •ml ucior lingly a fence was ore 'ted. The defcnd-int hiving been absent, on his return he fou'id this fence running through Keid's section, which he had planted with vo^efable**, and ho knocked the fence down. Raid it may bj mentioned bad not b^-en in communicatioa with the plaintiff, who, as ha had no writ'on right to the section thought it .would bo most ( quitable to divide the section between himself and. the purchaser of Michael Quin's property. Mr Wade held that the plaintiff, having no right to the land, had no power to recover on account of anything which he had fixed upon that land. Michanl Qain had been, it was clear, in possession of tho land, and he had transferred that possession to his brother William, tho present defendant. The plaintiff had therefore no claim, and his action was in reality an attempt to take the possession out of Quin's haads, and it was a fact that such neglected lands would, after a certain number of years, become the actual property of their possessors. The Court held that tho question before it was not one as to title, but as to the recovery of damage for destruction of a fence, which, at tho same time, had no right to be there, nor had the defendant any right to destroy. Mr Wade pointed out that the fence was part of the soil, and His Worship reserved his decision «till Tuesday. Phillips fy Campbell v. Lee. — Claim for £10 8s 6d for goods sold and delivered. Judgmo-.r, for the plaintiff in the amount claimed with costs, J 9s.