RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1529, 8 July 1886, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tem oka—Wednesday’, Jolt 7, 1886, [Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.U.]. boundary disputes. In the case in dispute between Messrs Indeed and Budd, of Winchester, Mr Tosawili applied for the case to be held over, as Mr Budd was not present. This wag accordingly done. Mr Budd sub* sequently arrived, and an amicable arrangement was arrived at between the parties on the basis of the arbitrator’s (Mr (J. Bourn’s) award. The arrangement was confirmed afterwards by the Resident Magistrate. Haar v. Bridges. This was a* other boundary dispute ease. Mr Raymond appeared for the complainant, and Mr Tosswill for defendant. Mr Raymond explained that the parties were neighbors at the Rangitata ; that Mr Wright, agent for Mrs Bridges, and Mr Haar agreed upon a certain boundary ; that Haar made a fence agreeable to this ; that subsequently Wright intimated that the fence was not where it ought to be, and said the fence would have to be removed. His client applied under section 32 of Fencing Act, for His Worship to appoint a competent surveyor to fix on the proper boundary. His client was willing to pay half the cost of the surveyor, provided the other side would allow for the seven chains of fence already made. Mr Tosswill held that His Worship had no power to fix a boundary. The power's of the Court were laid down by sections 11, 12, and 13 of the Fencing Act, and did not embrace the question of fixing the boundary on which the fence should be placed. Mr Raymond in reply pointed out that under section 32 the Court had power to make an order as to the removal of any dividing fence if not erected on the proper boundary, and argued at considerable length to that effect. His Worship said he did not know what was the difference. It appeared to him it was very small, and that it was not worth the parties’ while to coma to Court about it. He would take time to consider the points raised. Mr Tosswill said his client lived in Christchurch, and it was a hardship on her to b« dragged down here. His Worship said she was a “great goose ” that she did not come to soma arrangement respecting the case. The case would be held over. CIVIL CASES. Terauka Road Board v. J. Malarkey— Claim £6 2s 6d, for rates. Mr Aspinall appeared for the Road Board, and Mr Tosswill for defendant. Mr Beswick said he was quite satisfied that the case ought to have been brought in the name of the inhabitants of the Temuka Road District. He had looked into the case carefully, and he was strongly of that opinion. Mr Aspinall argued that the case had been brought properly before the Court, and referred the Court to clauses 114 and 26 of the Rating Act. He also quoted other authorities. His Worship said he had considered all these points, and concluded that the objection to the case was fatal. The Board must sue in the name of the inhabitants. It was a most extraordinary thing to bring the case again in the same form after it had been nonsuited.

Mr Tosswill applied for costs. It was great “ audacity ” on the part of the Road Board to bring the case again in the same form, when it was nonsuited before, and through this “pigheadedness” his client had again to defend it. He submitted, therefore, he was entitled to costs. •

His Worship said that after having decided the case the last day he did not feel satisfied that he had not committed an error. After having looked into the case since, he felt confident he was right. He would allow the defendant’s costs, and solicitor’s fee.

Mr Aspinall; Will your Worship allow an appeal. His Worship; Certainly, if the Board ia so foolish as to spend money on it, when to put a few words more in the plaint would have saved it. Mr Aspinall : I do not know whether they will go on with it or not. James Sullivan v. J. Jones—Claim £44 16s 6d.

Mr Lynch for plaintiff and Mr Raymond for defendant.

Mr Lynch explained the amount was claimed for damages sustained by the plaintiff through the cattle of the defendant trespassing on his land. The , plaintiff had land on the Kakahu and the defendant’s cattle trespassed on it. A letter was delivered by the plaintiff to defendant in Timaru requesting they should come to some arrangement with regard to the value of the damage done, and suggesting that each should appoint an arbitrator. To this defendant agreed, and the plaintiff and his arbitrator went to the place at the appointed time, but the defendant was not there. Subsequently plaintiff saw defendant and he said his arbitrator would not come. The plaintiff had the damages valued and brought the case into Court. James Sullivan, the plaintiff, gave evidence to the effect that he owned 120 or 130 acres of land in the Kakahu ; that a sod and three wires fence was around it, and it was sown in turnips. He also gave evidence with reference to the interview he had in Timaru with the defendant, when he agreed to (come to a valuation. In reply to Mr Raymond the witness admitted that there was no fence between the cross road and the paddock. Mr Raymond: I think that will conclude the case. Mr Lynch said he was given to understand it was fenced all round. His Worship said it was no use going any further with the case. A nonsuit was recorded. J. Low v. J. Alexander—Claim £4 4s 6d. Mr Hameraley appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Toaswill for the defendant. The plaintiff stated that he lent a machine to the defendant. He had the machine working all round. He brought the machine back broken. Alexander took the machine to a blacksmith, but the blacksmith would not repair it until he (witness) promised to pay for the repairs. To Mr Tosswill; Ihe machine was in good order when' Alexander got it. Robert Matthews : The machine was in good repair when I had it. The tilter board was right. John Alexander took it from me. On the following year a man named Cleary took the tilter board and never returned it. I did not see this,

I only heard it. I hoard it was burned. I have seen the irons. They sre at my place yet. John Craig gave evidence to the effect that he repaired the litter for Mr Low. John Alexander brought the machine to his place. He brought the fingers from Timaru, apd witness assisted ia putting them 00. To Mr Tosswill; After the finger W«to put on Mr Low took it Qwsy. He then brought it back again, and it vsmsined there about two years. He told me to charge Alexander, but I said I would not unless he guaranteed he would pay. J. Low, recalled, said the pinion wss broken when be took the machine away, but he did not notice it so wbea he brought it back. John Alexander said the shoe was off the machine when he got it. He broke three new fingers and got them on again. He ordered a whole set of fingers, but they came three short, and these were not put on. The double and spur pinions and the coil spring were all right when he gave it back. The tilter board was all right, but it was burned after it left witness’ possession. Robert Latimer aaid he was working for Tom Cleary at Mr Matthews’. Cleary wanted a tilter board for his machine, and told witness to go to Low’s for the loan of one. Witness did so, but could not see Low, so he took the tilter board and brought it with him, and it was never returned. After counsel had addressed the Court, His Worship said that evidently Alexander thought he had a right to put on the whole of the fingers, but he did not put on three of them, judgment would be given for the price of three fingers, 9a 6d. J. Moorhead v. k. Brown—Claim £7 19s 7d. A set-off for £5 14s was put in. Mr Raymond appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hamersley for the defendant. in this case the evidence of the plain tiff showed that he was a threshing machine proprietor, and agreed with the defendant to thresh his grain. In conversation with Brown, he aaid he would not have enough coal and did not know how much to order, when Brown said if he got Brunner coal he would tako what was left of it. The plaintiff preferred Newcastle to Brunner coal, but, to meet the defendant, he agreed to take Brunner. The defendant, who was going into Timaru, ordered the coal for him, and he paid for it, and when he spoke to defendant he said he had paid too much. He did not purchase any bags of oats from Brown. He had never been charged fot feed for his horsss. To Mr Hamersley : Brown ordered the coni himself and said he would keep whatever was left. I used nine sacks of it. I got Brunner instead of Newcastle to oblige him. The bsgs of oats on ths combine wars two bags 1 got from F. Brown, and one bag I brought from Ashburton, Tbe horses never had a feed at aIL I was a fortnight at Brown’s. I bed BO feed except the bags referred to for ray horses. The horses were turned out into the paddocks. I never was charged with feed anywhere. F. Brown was present at a conversation about coal between plaintiff and defendant. Defendant said if plaintiff got Brunner coal he would take any of it which might remain over. Moorhead told Brown ho could order Brunner coal. Frank Denby, telegraphist at the Rangitata Railway Station, gave evidence to the effect that Brown’s brother took $ some of the coal away, and said the coal belonged to th6m. There were 38 b*gs there still. Henry Coulter ; The farmer always feeds the horses of threshing machines when threshing for them. Heard Brown say the coats were too dear, and that Moorhead should not have paid for £hem. A. Brow n, contractor, Greek, stated that the plaintiff asked him how much threshing he would have, and witness told him. He then said he would not bare enough coal, and witness slid he would be going into Timaru next Saturday. Plaintiff said he did not know how much to order, and witness said “-Twill . hike a ton or thirty cwt. from you if yon gel Brunner coal." Witness ordered the coal, and when plaintiff spoke to him afterwards witness told him he would take two tons if ho would decide on it before he finished carting. He said he would try to sell it to Clayton, and wou'd let him know after he returned from Ashburton. He did not let witness know for four weeks after, and witness refused to take any then. He found six bags of oats on the top of the combine. He charged 5s a day for six horses for 14 days, and 5s for one bag of potatoes. Plaintiff said he forgot to deduct the price ot the potatoes from the cook. T. Pithie gave evidence to the effect that he had heard the conversation about the coal. Defendant aaid he would take two tons of it if he could get it within four weeks. J. H. Clayton said the plaintiff spoke to him about buying the coal, but witness did not like it. Plaintiff said Brown was to have taken the lot, but now would only take two tons ef it. John Brown, brother of the defendant, gave evidence of having seen two sewn bags and three tied bags of oats on the combine. The coal he carted from the station was for Moorhead. His Worship said the plaintiff changed from Newcastle to Brunner coal, so as to suit the defendant, who bad promised to to take what remained over of it. The defendant was bound to take the coal, po he would give judgment for the plaintiff for £7l2s lOd. The set-off would not be allowed. The Court then rose.