Lumsden Court.

Southland Times, Issue 14813, 14 December 1900, Page 4

Lumsden Court.

On Monday Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M., gave judgments for plaintiffs in F. and C. : Dore v. Valli, for £4 4s, costs 6s, and A. i Macalister v. A. Murrell, for £1 12s, costs 16s. A. J. Cameron v. James Douglas was a ! claim of £41 for trespass and damage. — Mr , Hanan for plaintiff, Mr W. Macalister for defendant. Tho plaintiff stated that he was occupying part of Glenquoich run under i an arrangement with tho trustees of the , Rogers estate. He had exchanged part of a run he held in Eyre Crook district for this right and had received .£.->0 compensation. A document had boon drawn up by G, F. Johnson, giving particulars of his rights, but he could not say where the document could be found; he left it with Mr Johnson. Tho trustreos, however, pulled a hut on to the piece of ground for plaintiff to reside in. The land had previously been occupied by defendant, who now lived exactly opposite, on the other side of the creek, and his cattle and horses wore continuall}' trespassing on tho around and in his (plaintiffs) crop, and wore breaking down his fences. — G. F. said he drew up the document referred to, but he could not now find it, although he had searched for it. — George Seator gave evidence as to seeing cattle in ' the crop, and David Douglas said he hid put them out three or four times. — Mr Macalister contended that plaintiff must bo nonsuited on the grounds that he had no rit*ht to squat in this piece of the run : he could only be on the land on sufferance. With regard to the damage to crop plaintiff had no right to crop, therefore could not claim damages. It had not beeq shown either that a tent had been damaged hy defendant's now. — Mr Hanan held that the plaintiff had proved possession and that he therefore had a right to claim against anyone but the owner for trespass. It had been clearly shown that defendant's cattle had trespassed on the land and in the crop. — His Worship said that tho farts "of the caso showed plaintiff was occupying Crown land. With regard to two items he must be nonsuited because he could give no proof he had been granted possessiou ; further, there was nothing to mark what land lie was oecnpying as there were no fences. With regard to damage to crop (£10) tho question was whether a person occupying Crown land without a title could sue for damage by trespass. He only knew of one caso which had any bearing on the point, and would reserve it and give a decision at Invereargill. The land would have to be treated as unfenced as there was not a sufficient fence according to the ordinance. There might be a case for damage to the crop. — James Douglas said he had the same right as plaintiff; he paid 10s per head to the station manager for the right to run cattle anywhere on Glenquoich. He knew the paddock of oats ; his cows and horses had at times trespassed on it as there was no fence the greater part of the time. He had seen as many as 200 sheep in the oats at one time. Agnes Douglas gave evidence that the tent might have been destroyed by the station cattle as theirs and those belonging to the station ran together at the time tho tent was destroyed. She had seen their cattlo and horses in the crop, but alwnj's sent the boy to fetch them out. His Worship said he would give his decision at an early date. — Own correspondent.