Resident Magistrate's Court.

Southland Times, Issue 4498, 9 December 1882, Page 2

Resident Magistrate's Court.

I "* " i Thursday, 7th December. (Before H. McCulloch, Esq., R.M.) DRUNK. A fine of 10s — in default, 24 hours' imprisonment — was entered against an offender, who seemed to think that he had been quite capable of taking care of himself. CIVIL ACTIONS. Curtis v. Bromby — A claim under a judgment summons. Ordered to be paid forthwith, with £1 costs ; in default, a month's imprisonment. Campbell v. Bennett — A claim of £30 for wages, in support of which Mr Finn appeared. Plaintiff was one of the victims of the absconding railway contractor. Judgment was given for the amount, with £3 7s costs. Walker and Springfield v. Bennett — A similar claim for £54 2s Gd, for which judgment was given, with costs. Curtis v. O'Connor — A claim of £2 11s on a judgment summons. Ordered to be paid forthwith, with 5s costs ; in default, one week's imprisonment. C. R. Martin v. P. O'Connor— A claim of £67 for money lent. Mr Wade for plaintiff. Mr Finn for defendant. The transactions arose out of the purchase of the racehorse Coldstream — a matter that had been before the Court previously. The action was chiefly remarkable for the absence of satisfactory documentary evideDce in support of the claim, and its complications. Defendant denied the correctness of the sums lent as stated by plaintiff, and asserted that he received no monfiy on a receipt produced by plaintiff. — His Worship said that the matters in dispute were so muddled up that it was impossible to unravel them without documentary evidence. For the amount of a bill of excbange[(£34), which formed part of the transaction, judgment was given, with £5 costs. Mr Finn applied to have judgment stayed pending appeal. M'Gillvray v. J. Thomson and Sons. — A claim for £80 as damages for trespass, exten i ing over four years, by sheep. Mr Wade appeared for plaintiff ; Mr Finn for John Thomson, sen. ; Mr Russell, for Peter Thomson, and Mr Matthews for James and John Thomson, juo., all objected to the hearing of the action aa against their clients, and Mr Russell produced public netice of a dissolution of the co-partnership in 1875 and prior to the alleged trespass. The objections gave rise to lengthy arguments, in the course of which all the defendants, with the exception of John Thomson, sen., were struck out. Their counsel then applied for costs, but these were objected to by Mr Wade, and ultimately the haaring was proceeded with as against Thomson and Sons ; the question of their liability aa a firm to be decided after evidence had been taken.— -Plaintiff is owner of sectiona 25 and 26, block 1, Winton Hundred, and deposed that for four years past he had been subject to an invasion of defendant's sheep every spring. They ate up his rye-grass, grown * from imported seed, and he had to part with young stock, having no grass lor them. The produce from his cows also fell off from the same cause from 30s to 10s a week. Had seen as many as 500 sheep in his paddock. In 1880 had to sell four cows, having no feed for them, in coosequonce of the trespass. — At this stage, Mr Rubsell called attention to the fact that plaintiff hud admitted that he did not consider Peter Thomson a partner, and counsel insisted that he should be disjoined, fto action whs taken. — The witness deposed that in 1881 he was ill', and could not look after his farm. His loss from trespass was therefore greater. His neighbors were able to keep about four times as much stock as he could. — Previous to the usual adjournment Mr Wade, in reply to the Court, admitted that he could not bring further proof of partnership than the belief of • plaintiff. — A nonsuit, with £1 11s 6d costs to each, was then entered as for all the defendants, except John Thomson, sen. On resuming, plaintiff was cross-ex-amined by Mr Finn. He deposed that he had eown about 30 acres with English grass, and on part of this the grass was cropped so short that he could not get hold of it with finder and thumb. Denied that any other siieep than defendant's trespassed. Never saw defendant engaged iQ : removing the sheep from the paddocks. Saw Robsrt, David, and Thomas Thomson at various times removing them. Would not swear to the brand, but they were claimed by the Thomsons Wm. Sproule, a High School boy, deposed that he bad seen 500 or 600 sheep branded. T in McGilJvray's paddock on various days last year.— A daughter and the wife of plaintiff corroborated this, their knowledgo of the trespass extending over several years. The Thomsons were the only persons who drove the Bheep out. At this stage the hearing was adjourned to allow the parties to go home to Winton by train.