RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT

Waikato Times, Volume XV, Issue 1249, 1 July 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT

Yesterday. (Before H. W. Northcroft, Esq., R.M.) Civil Gases. Broakell v. Martin, claim, £6 5a for Burveyinpr. Mr O'Neill appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Gresham, of Tn Awamutu, for defendant. The evidenco was taken some time ago, and His Worship now gave judgment. He said, I give iudgment under section 47 of the R.M. Act— the Equity and Good Conscience Clause — from which there is no appeal. I consider that the defendant assisted the plaintiff in measuring the land on >undav, and that therefore the Statute of 29 Cor. 11, which his counsel set up as a defence is really no defence for him. Mr Gresham asked for leave to appeal, but his Worship decided that he had no powfT to grant an appeal. Mr CJresham submitted that the Equity .»n<l Good Conscience Clause did not justify a Resident Magistrate in overruling the 29 h Cor. 11, any more than it trave him power tn iijnor the Stat. of Frauds or the Stat. of Limitations. Smith v. J Jarvis, claim £20, value of a horse killed by the defendant. Mr 0 NeiU appeared for the plaintiff, and called John Jarvi'i, a laborer, who deposed th the knew Mr Smith. He remenv^ bered riding the plaintiffs horae towards Ngaruawahia. He had been told to go to Mr Limmer's. He had to carry a large portmauteau, and could not make it fast. He had four gates to go through. He got down at each. At the last gate, near Mr Hindle's he dismounted and opened the gate. -Ju^t as he got through a gu-»t of wind blew the gate to, hitting the mare on the flank and turning her over. He went for assistance, but could not get the mare up. Mr Limraer afterwards came, and told hi \\ she was staked, and turned her over and found her entrails hanging out. He then told Mr Li miner that he would shoot the poor animal and put it out of its misery. Mr Limtner said he did not believe in shooting another man's horse, but at witness reqiiest he loaded a gun and witness shot the animal. He then went to Ngaruawahia and executed his commissions. Cross-examined : The gate would not open wide without lifting it. He did not open it wide. To the Bench : It was a pure accident, and not the result of negligence. Charles Limmer, manager for Mr Hindle, at Whatawhata, knew the mare which he had sold to Mr Smith. It waa worth about £15. The gate in question Avas on a swamp road, and could not be opened without lifting it Did not think a whirlwind could close it after it was I opeued. He went down with the defendant and found the mare lying in the swamp in the water, and staked. He said the mare was done, and there could be no use in getting her out of the swamp. He would not have shot the mare without acquainting the owner, and he told the defendant to do so. The latter, however, said he would take the responsibility if he would give him a gun, and this witness did. William Smith, the plaintiff, a farmer, residing at Whatawhata, deposed that the mare was worth £20. He knew the gate in question, and his experience was that a person would have to dismount to open the gate and open it up. The defendant told him that a " whirligig" had closed the gate, and knocked the mare into the swamp. Defendant had promised to make him sonip reeompouse for the ma/c on various occasions. No sum was agreed upon. James Stevenson, farm laborer at Whatawhata, deposed that he knew tho gate in question. To op^n the gate he had to put his shoulder to it ; but one could open ifc two or three feet frcm the back of a horse. A breeze of wind that would blow the gate shut would blow a man off his feet. He heard the defendant say he would pay for the mare when he had sufficient money. Charles Limmer, recalled, said he valued the mare a' £13, because mice he had t>old her she had been put in foal, and on good grass bad much improved in condition. The Magistrate gave judgment for £10, without costs. N. R. Cox v. W. Smith, claim £20, for goods an 1 cash lent. The defendant's case was that be did not owe anything 1 , as the plaintiff owed him this for putting up a cottage for him. The price agreed upon was £25, but plaintiff hid altered bis plans, and defendant considered that he was entitled to nearly double that amount. His Worship recommended the defendant to sue the plaintiff for the difference. In the preseutcase he must give judgment for plaintiff with co-ts. James Hall v. W. H. Kelly, claim £7 9s, for five weeks' rosts. Judgment for the plaintiff for full amount without costs. Missen v. Palmtr, claim £l 3s 6d. Mr O'Neill, for the defendant, disputed certain items amounting 1 to 8s ; the balance had been paid into Court. Jud/ment for defendant with costs. Same v. Williams, claim £l 0s Gd, judgment for plaintiff; same v. Cook, claim £1 16s 7d, judgment for plaintiff with costs ; same v. W Andrews, claim 17s 3d, judgment for plaintiff with costs.