MOTUEKA.

Colonist, Volume IX, Issue 855, 9 January 1866, Page 3

MOTUEKA.

JUSTICE OF PEACE COURT,

A sitting of this Court was held in the Institute, on Saturday, 30th ult, the Justices present being J. Roger button, (Chairman), W. B. Wright, T. H. Vyvyan, and P* Horneman, Esquires. A FENCING. CLAIM. —MAGISTERIAL EXAMPLES. The first case was one nt the instance of Mr. W. B. Wright against Mr. Horneman, and these magistrates leit the Bench, and took their positions at the har as complainant and defendant. The ground of action was a claim for the price of 8£ chains of fencing, at 325. per chain, erected by the complainant between defendant's ground and his own ; said price being the full amount allowed by law, one half of which was what was claimed from defendant as his share. It, was stated by Ciiptain Wright that a correspondence had taken place between him and defend ant on the subject of the division fence, which required repairs. In this defendant said he would agree to the repairs on an equitable basis, but as he did not reply to the question as to what he meant by the word equitable, complainant gave notice, as required by t he Act, that he would put up. the fence and charge defendant according to the Act. The defence was—lst, that there was not the extenfc-of fencing Btated ; 2nd, that defendant had erected the new fence on his own land, and not on the division line of the two properties, in some cases the divergence being as much as five feet; 3rd, that the charge of 32.-!. per chain was exorbitant. Evidence was led, in which one" witness, named Chapmmi, who is in the employment of Captain Wright, and assisted to put up the fence, said the work was worth 30s. per chain, a statement which produced numerous expressions ol surprise among the audience. On the part of defendant evidence was adduced as to tlie actual measurement of the fence, and that it was on Mr. Wright's own land, and on the average upwards of two feet from the line, and that such a fence (post and three-rail) could be erected for from 16s. to 20s. per chain ; the latter price being an outside one. During the proceedings the complainant and defendant rather lost their tempers, and exchanged language which was by no means complimentary, and far from befiting justices and gentlemen, Mr. Wright having gone the length of tilling Captain Horneman (who had made a somewhat pointed observation touching the truthfulness of his opponent), that he ought to be the last man to talk about people speaking the truth, seeing that he had been publicly accused in the newspapers of falsehood, and had not contradicted it. "Altoge'her there was a scene iri the Court, and the audience was considerably excited during this case. The Chairman, in giving judgment, ignored the two first objections as'being, the first, trivial, and the second, really for the defendant's benefit, but. finding the charge of 325. per chain too high. Judg ment for£s, being Imlfthe price of erection ofSchains at 255. per chain, and costs. Captain Horneman gave notice of appeal to a higher court. Tlie two litigant justices thereafter re-assumed their places on the Bench cattle impounding case.—-remarkable judgment. Green v. Talbot. Complainant claimed £l 55., as money which he had had to pay the poundkeeper on cattle illegally impounded by defendant. The facts of the case appeared to be these : —Defendant, found four head of complainant's cattle among his crops, and drove them to ihe pound, laying the damages at 205., which, along with the pound fees, complainant had to nay before he could get his cattte again. The Chairman told defendant that he had taken a wrong course in itrfpounding the cattle, as, seeing that he had not a sufficient fence on his ground, according to the Impounding Ordinance, he should not have impounded the cattle, but have sued Green *or trespass, and therefore the Court would have to give judgment for complainant. At the same time, Mr. Dutton. turning to complainant, recommended him to let the mutter rest, because if he proceeded with it he would get judgment, but the defendant, Talbot, would have an opportunity of sueing him again under the Trespass Ordinance. After considerable hesitation complainant agreed to withdraw the case, which was done. ANOTHER TRESPASS CASE—A REVERSE DECISION. WIT.DEMAN V. INWOOD. Complainant, who resides at the Lower Moutere, and has a very fine garden and orchard well cultivated, complained that lie had been continually annoyed with the p'gs of defendant and other*. On the day mentioned in the summons complainant found a number of pigs in his garden, and evidence of their having injured the place. One of these pigs he drove home to defendant's place, and claimed 2s. as damage for what it had done Defendant gave him Is. being all the cash he had at the time, and promised to pay the other, which he had not done, and he now sued for the remaining shilling in order to read a lesson, to defendant, whose pigs still entered his garden, breaking through the fences to get in Defendant admitted owing the shilling, and that he had not had possession of one since he paid the other, or he would have given it to complainant. The chairman, Mr. Dutton, asked him if he had got-' ls. now, and he replied, Yes; and being told to pay it did so. Complainant, then asked the costs of summons and hearing ; but was told by Mr Dutton that he could notrecover these as he had taken a wrong remedy, for his ground being well fenced his case was clearly one under the Impounding Act. and he should have driven the pigs to the pound. Costs refused accordinly. A LIQUOR BILL. —TALBOT V. ROSE. This was a claim of 14s. for liquors supplied at various times. Defendant, did not appear, but the service of the summons was proved, and the complainant swore to the correctness of Ihe amount. The chairman gave a nonsuit on the ground that as the law was that a person cannot recover in court for any liquor supplied, if it did not nmount to 20s.'s worth' supplied at one time. Nonsuit accordingly. Several other small debt cases were disposed of^and the Court rose.