RESIDENT COURT, HAMILTON. Yesterday.—[Before H. W. Northcroft, Esq., B.M., and His Worship the Mayor.]

Waikato Times, Volume XVI, Issue 1356, 10 March 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT COURT, HAMILTON. Yesterday.— [Before H. W. Northcroft, Esq., 8.M., and His Worship the Mayor.]

Breach o£ the Borough By-lavp*. J. Wheel Aif T wf» chJWgedrWitb a brtoch of the BorougT Brawm Sitting fire to some furze in GaUoNray-street, Hamilton Munuy gave bv.Woiow -r-The defendant stated that he^had been I sad vised b£ a^eig^lbouct 0 !^ 1^ *lp fttrzCf having oeen warned to clear it by the been done.— jo|9^n.«d* i fn4. i ijisch»rged.

Civil Cases. "EAvviELto v. iLitoocic.f-CSaiM fdr Kill! cost of fencing between I 'plaintiff's atli | defendant's land.— Mr O'Neill' for the defendant. — This cake hadboen ad jonrned ! from last Court day, in,' o/der, toj decide i upon an objection raised by counsel for the! defence; ,tl|a,t proved that the^apd, 'gw situa&a in » district in which' tine FeiicingAct had been brought into 'forc*/^-The-ceß»hs now upheld the 'objection,' 'ind'ifdn-suited the plaintitf, with'fcoBfe. ' ] ' '-■■'» In the following, case? judgment was siren for .full ttmount'&nd costs by de« fault:—^ ' «'■ .',' l IAVUtW ■ ' Kirikiriroft' - Highway, t JSoard; .y^, O. Green, claim. ,4s 38,8^; same v. W. Q-. Garrard, claim £2 lla' 8d. — In theße cases Mr Wi M.^Hertr appeared 1 for the plaintiffs. — J. Misieh v. G. Mason, claim J6l 15 ; same T. J.Kellett, «Uim £20s 9d ; same v. R. Ryan, claim £2 16s 3d ; same Y. J. King, claim £8 9s 3d.— ln the above caros Mr O'Neill' appeared for the plain* tiff- ■ i .' ■

Defended Oa'rfes. • ! * J. Moses v. J. Carley, claim for goods .supplied.— Mr 'O'Neill for ih'§ plaintiff, and Mr Gresbam fpr, the defendant{-r* Mr Gresham said! before proceeding with the oase he woaldj'iike 1 ' tb^i&rejiHis Worship's ruling *&J#^whether the case ought not to have been heard at the B»M. Court Te Awamutu,' which was the Court nearest the place wh^rptfo^ cause of actioa arose. — Mr O'Neill contended; tbat cases could be heard in any Court in the district of Waikato ; but in this instance the summons had been taken oxii at' ttfe" Gburfc nearest the residence of the plaintifiPand that of the chief ''witn&ji. He admitted that the cause >of. «.ction s a^osp in Te Awamutu, but the plaintiff had never lived there. He did 'not think, the plain* tiff should be called on io stiidy the con. venience of the .defendant 'to, his^own prejudice.^His Worship said the bourse taken by the plaintiff seemed to him to be contrary to the spirit of the Act. But after all it appeaje£ to he-pore » matter of practice than "of taw. "It had been the custom in that.Court, before his time, to hear all cases in the ' Couri' n'eafesl the place where the cause of action arose. Since he had sat on that Bench he had followed, the same system, and he was not now going' to stultify himself. The Bench decided that the case should be heard at Te jA;Wamiit,u. , , Costs were allowed the" defendant.— ln J the case, Moses v. Baker, ' ■& 'siniflar" decision waa