RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 7957, 30 August 1887, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THIS DAY. Tpesday, August 30.— Before O. E. Rawson, Esq., R.M. Judgment fob Plaintiffs. — Frankley Road Board v. Proctor (an abapntoe), holder of section 43. Claim, £1' Is 4d, tor two years' rates. Mr. Standtsh appeared for the Road Board. The liability was proved by Henry Okey, who stated that enquiries had been instituted and a notification inserted in tho newspaper concerning the matter. Judgment waß given for the amount claimed, with costs £1 19s 3d.— N. P. Sash and Door Co. v. Nathaniel Hooker. Mr. Hughes appeared for the plaintiff Company. Mr. Tribe (seoretary) proved defendant's indebtedness. Judgment was recorded for £4 Is, and coats 16b Gd. ' A DISPUTED BOUNDARY. Henry Waring Saxton v. James Spence. Claim, 6s, for damage done by palling up six posts. It seems that tke plaintiff is holder of sections 19 and 20, Grey Distriot, on the Carrington Road, and the defendant holds two sections adjoining plaintiff's. A paper road, or closed one, runs through the sections in question, and part of this road abutting on defendant's land ia included in plaintiff's grant, he having bought it. The posts were across the end of this roadway, &s owned by the plaiatiff. Mr. Govett appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Richmond for the defendant. Mr. Richmond wanted to know if his i learned friend waa going to make the whole boundary question between the two properties the issue. JMr.^ Govett aiid he had nothing to do with isßae. He was suing for damage done through the posts being pulled np. Mr, Richmond said that it was simply a catch. He had been led to believe ; that the whole boundary between the two pro parties was in dispute, whereas it wap only over a paltry eighteen pennyworth, or a perch of land, where the postß were put in. As the case now stood, he would simply defend ia order to get a mitigation of costs. Mr. Govett called the plaintiff, draughtsman in the Survey Office, who deposed to his title to the piece of land in question, it being included in his sections. Had instructed his man to put in posts for a boundary fence according to pegs put in by Mr. T. G. Sole, surveyor. Posts were put in, and pulled up twice, although he had sent defendant the letter (produced and read) through his solicitor. By Mr. Richmond : Told Mr. Spenoe' by letter that he was going to have his boundary put right. Spoke personally to defendant about it once, but was answered in such a way that he did not speak to him again. " The reason he had taken out the summons waß to prove his title to the land in dispute. Thomas Gore Sole, surveyor, gave evidence as regards the surveying of the boundary between the two properties. Josoph Hadland, the plaintiff's man, gave evidence about the posts being put in and pulled out. He valued the loss occasioned by defendant at 6s. Mr. Richoicnd called James Spence, the defendant, who stated that he had a dispute about a boundary fence. Mr. Sole, last November waß on his land, and surveyed a line from the Carrington Road to the Henui river, parallel to the old boundary between the properties. Mr. Govett saw witness about the matter and told him that Mr. Saxton was going to put in a boundary fence. Certain posts were put in, within his boundary. He did not know a road existed where the posts were till a few dayß ago. By His Worship : He did not admit that the posta wete on plaintiff's property, as he thought they were on his. He could have gone to the Survey Office and found out. Ootavius Carrington, surveyor, gave evidence as the correctness of the old boundary between the two properties. This closed the defence. [ Mr. Richmond contended that no proper intimation had been given to his client about this perch of land. The letter Mr. Govett Bent to him was not clear. He fully thought up to Monday afternoon that the whole boundary was in dispute, acd not this miserable eighteen pennyworth of land, part of an old road. The amount would have been paid ia had he known the facts. He would ask for judgment to be given to his client on the ground that no intelligible intimation had been given of the matter in dispute. I£ His Worship could not do that then he would usk, under Section 53 of the Act, and ia common fairness, that the costs should be equally borne. Mr. Govett said the question was simply what damage had been sustained by plaintiff through defendant pulling up the poßts, which were on plaintiff's landills Worship s a id that defendant was clearly in the wrong, and plaintiff vros really entitled to O OBts. It was a pity defendant had not gone to the Survey Office to see on whose land the fence was b »pg .erepted. Judgment would be for plaintiff for 6 fl , and costs £1 14s. The Court rose.

Mr. Marchant addresses the electors at Bell Block this evening. The b'.b. Penguin leaves Manukau this evening's tide, is due early to-morrow morning, and sails for Nelson at 7 a.m. Tho s.B. Wanaka leaves Wellington at 9 o'clock to-night, is due at 3 p.m. to-morrow, and sails for Manukau at 6 p.m. Tho settlers and residentß in and around Bell Block are reminded that the Service of Song " Primitive Ship " will be rendered in their midst, in the Primitive Methodist Chapel, on Wednesday (tomorrow) evening, at 7.30 o'clock.— Advt. 0249 It is said that 64-43 per cent, of the whole population of New Zealand is engaged in domestic ocouputions, 4-70 in commercial, 11-27 in agricultural, 13*21 in industrial, 2-16 in professional, and 423 innothing in particular. It would appear that the actual producers only form oneninth of the population , or, in other wordß out of 576,006 persons only -65,178 may fairly be classed as producing at all. An exchange Bays :— There are some steep gradients on the railway near Auckland. A passenger train a few days ago got pulled up on one of the grades, and began to run back. The passengers expected another Peat's forry disaster, and began to jump out, but tho brakes being put on, the train was soon stopped. It had to be taken up in' sections. At Napier, Mr. Ivess was asked the following question:— " Will you tell us how Sir John Hall gridironed his run ?" He replied, "In Canterbury a regulation wob passed that no blockß of land under 20 acres should be sold. Sir John Hall had it surveyed into 19 and 20 acre blocks and tosk up the 20 aora blocks, and no one could buy the intervening 19 aores. At least that was how the story was told in the Canterbury papers." Fiji is a country theatricals should visit often. An old resident of New Zealand now living in Suva wrote to a friend in Napier the other day that a third-rate ciroua which visited thorn a couple of months ago had a oratomed tent for four nights at 3s, ss, and 7s 6d ! At a village nola hundred miles from Ohelmsford two gentlemen celebrated tbe Jubilee in a novel way — by promising £10 far eaoh baby born on Jubilee Day. The inhabitants consider that the patriotic donorß should have given aotioe of tbeir iuteutiotu.