CIVIL SIDE.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2116, 15 October 1875, Page 2

CIVIL SIDE.

Undefended Cases. o'hALLOBAN $, CO. V. HANHAM. Judgment summons, £2 IBs ; 9d. No appearance of defendant. , Order made for payment within 14 days, failing payment, .|p be imprisoned for one month in Shortla'nd'Gaol. W. D. BEID V. JOHN BABE. Good*, £5 Us Bd.|: f; ' *, \l \ ' I Na; lV&ppearance 6f:ldefend'arit.? ' • W. D. Eeid proved the debt, minus sixpence, added by mistake to the amount. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs, 235. JAMES MACKIE V. HENRY CUETIS. Judgment kftmnjoins^ £5 8j 3d.i -i") f{ '• His Worship)l diw riite'ritibn to: the': fact that judgment summonses were issued, not for the protection of the creditor, but ©f the debtor, and that, ere a judgment summons could, be issued, the party-requinrig the Isumm6rismu3t sign a declaration that he could prove the defendant was able to pay the amount, but would not. Failing this, costs would go against the plaintiff. Henry Curtis, deposed, that he was a .'bus driver, making about £3 a week. He could not have paid the money, even had he tried. Out of the £3 he had to pay £1 a week for the horse and only got half of the remainder for himself which was rev quired to keep him. Mackie had detained him from getting work elsewhere. He had no money more than that he had about him. The 'bus aud horse wore not his.

(Mr Tyler here explained the circumstances out of which the-present case arose, from which it appeared that Mr Mackie had goods of 'the defendant for which he would have allowed him €5 18s (jd;. He. had not returned these goods, parts oL a carriage, some of which had been burnt.); 1;; ;'...'• TExaminatibn resumed. ; Had the goods belonging to him been returned by Mr Mackie he would hare been able to pay the debt. He had sent i a man with a horse and dray for the ,Uhjngs«..'but,. Mr Mackie had-refused, to j give them up. ■ No order made. j A LAMB^BBOS. X. JOSEPH PATEICK. ' Judgment summons, £13 lls 4d. ! This case was-taktfn out of its order to allow Patrick to be present. No appearance of defendant being entered, payment was ordered within seven days, or two months' imprisonment failing payment. :

Defended Cases. h. alley v. eqbebt kelly. '; '{/■[ Claim for £10 damages. Mr Tyler for defendant. Mr Macdonald, for the plaintiff, said that the circumstances were, that Mr Alley, among other lands,' held a cropped „pasture, which was fenced and surrounded- : by land unfenced.i and i that Mr Kelly's cattle were in the habit of getting into this pasture, and Mr Kelly, when he saw fit, which might be after they were well fed, drove them out, in doing which he from time to time injured plaintiff's land. H. Alley, being sworn, said —I am a settler and farmer at Hikutaia, and hold certain lands there, holding the land as freehold, having purchased it from L. D. Nathan, of Auckland. The deeds are at my solicitor's in Auckland. I have held ppsession three years some time next ;month. At the time of the Hikutaia rush I was draining this paddock, and some natives objected to the drains being dug out, saying they had some right to the land. Cross-examined by Mr Tyler. One native who claimed the land was Selwyn, another Mrs Dean. They tried to stop the land being drained. At the time the trespass, was committed Kelly was trying to get a cow and a calf off the land. Robert Kelly said—l was on horseback on the occasion driving the cow and calf, one. belonging to a native, which I had purchased 18 months ago; the other belonged to a native. , I was endearouring to drive the cow off the land to brand it, so that there„ should be no bother about it. - Cross-examined by Mr Tyler—l bought the cow from Prince. Up to the time of this alleged trespass I had not had delivery of the cow. The reason I went after it was because Mrs Dean and Prince had asked me to. Kenneth Macaskill said — My uncle was in possession of the land in question. He held it by a crown grant. The land did not come straight from my uncle to Mr Alley, but passed through Mr Nathan's hands. Cross-examined—l never saw the crown grant.' I only heard there was one. r This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr Tyler for the defence called— ■ Mararara Hikori (Mrs Dean), who gave evidence through Mr G. Wilkinson the interpreter, explained that she knew the land in question and remembered Mr Kelly going on it to catch some cattle, one belonging to,her, one to himself. Kelly went to catch it because she asked j him. The reason why, her cow was on the land was because they (her people) own the land and cattle continually run on it; she meant the part of land where the drains are. Her people had had the land ever since her mother was alive. John Prince is a part owner. She, had spoken to Mr Alley about the land. "When Mr Alley dug the drains they filled them in again because they owned the land. If Mr Mackay-did not come and settle the dispute about the land they would go and live on: it again. (The remainder of this witnesses' evidence in chief went to s>ow that she considered her people entitled to" the land.j \ Cross-examined by Mr Macdonald— There is no crown grant for that piece of land. His Worship said that if the crown, grant was here he would not take any cognizance of these claims to the land, but unfortunately 1 it was not there. He was quite satisfied that it was abona fide question of. title,and beyond his jurisdiction. He would advise Mr Alley to take the case to the Supreme Court. H. ALLEY V. G. FISHES Claim for damages, £5. . The same counsel were engaged. George Fisher said he did riot deny that about the date he had pulled down a fence oa land alleged to be Mr Alley's, believing as he had always baen inIpnfred that, it; was a public road; He had crossed the river by a different road this morning, but had been obliged to dp so by: swimming his horse. By Mr Tyler: I hare often travelled the road for the last two and a-lialf years. Mr Alley about four months ago told me it wasn't the. proper road, and he intended to summon me. I have seen several others along this road; it is a regular beaten track, and I was using it as one of the public. H. Alley deposed to owning the land, and having fenced portions of it. When he first came there the land was not used as a public'track. On two or three occasions he had told Fisher to use the road through the gates. . , Mararara Hikori (Mrs Dean), through Mr Wilkinson, having asked first tor her expenses, deposed-She saw Mr Fisher pulling down the fence. She and- her brother'told Fisher to go that wayy as the track belonged to them ; everybody goes along there. It hadalways.becn the.road from olden times. _■ _ . By Mr Macdonald—lt might be a month since Fisher crossed over the river, j She told him to come that way because khe and her brother held the land. This; ?she tells to everybody. Mr Tyler submitted that as this was a question of whether it was a public highway or not it, was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. . No jurisdiction.—Case struck out. A. HOGG & CO. V. SAMUBL BEIBSEHAM. ' Goods £5 11s 8. Mr Brassey for plaintiff. There was a set-off of £3 in. this case which Mr Macdonald for plaintiff refused to admit;' ' Alexander Hogg said that with the exception of three items he admitted the set-off. The goods . mentioned in the account were supplied by him and his servant to the defendant. (The whole of this case was a question of accounts, arising out of plaintiffs' having established defendant in business as black-

smith at Ohinemuri, certain sets-off against tho plaintiffs' account were pleaded by defendant, some of which were admitted and others denied br plaintiff.) - y The Court; then adjourned till 2 o'clock.