DISTRICT COURT.

Inangahua Times, Volume II, Issue II, 2 March 1881, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

Tuesday, Maech 1, 1881. * t?efore His Honor Judge Broad.)- T ■'" " Beeche v. Welcome. 1 On taking his seat, his Honor stated * that he had, on tbe request of counsel, t given judgment in this case ia Grey s

mouth, but that such required entering up here, he, therefore, ordered judgment | to be entered up in faVour of the plaintiff for £50, and £63 19k costs. In the matter of the Petition of the Bank of New Zealand; and in the matter of the Yjctobia Gold Mining Company. This was an application ronde, on behalf of the Bank of New Zealand, for an order to wind up the Victoria Company,, tinder the Mining Companies' Act, 1872. ■■•■• Mr Jones, who apppared for the ap« licants, read the petition settinp forth the grounds of the application, showing that the sum of £324 4s 44, was owing to the Bank of New Zealand. That repeated application had been made by the bank to the manager for payment of the above sum, failing which the present application was made. ■ Order made that proceedings be carried on as prayed. That general meeting of creditors be held on the 30th March at the Court House, Eeefton. Notices of such meeting to bo sent to each "Lynch v. iNisoitHfJL .Cotffrtftr votf&ciC 1 This was an action for £200 damages and special damages, through the act of the Council in constructing a road through the middle of plaintiffs land above Crusbington, Mr Guinness appeared for tfee plaintiff, and Mr Lynch appeared for defendants. Mr Guinness in opening the case, stated that the special damages arising from the act of defendant amounted to £115, which sum was estimated to be required to fence in the remaining portion of the land, which otherwise would be valueless, and £$5 general damages ; and that he would be in a position to prove that a trespass had been made, for which the defendant* were liable. A demand had been made, by the plaintiff for compensation, but not entertained on the part of the Council. The following evidence was called :— Thomas Lynch, sworn : I am a dairyImariTand; farmer residing at Crushing* 4ort, wheVe I have resided for nine years. The document now produced is the lease under which I hold the Isnd, (Assignment Bnd the lease admitted ly Mr Lynch.) I was in possession of the land on the 20th of April, 1880. The land was originally covered by heavy timber and scrub. On the dafe Mr Gardner came there the whole width of the section was cleared for 40 chains. The whofe block was sufficiently enclosed to keep ont cattle. Potatoes, cabbages, oats, and grass was growing on the land. The most part of the land WBS sfony. I have carted away hundreds of Idads of stones from it. Mr Gardner, then County Engineer, surveyed a dray rdad through the length of the section ; I suppose he marked out a chain wide. The actual road was made 10 feet wide, but outside of that, trenches were made Bnd pits cut. Some traffic exists on the road, and I suffer on account of the road not being fenced ; 94 chains of fencing is required to secure my land ; I reckon defendants have taken about four acres of my ground. About 40 chains have been cleared at 10s a chain for falling, nnd 10s for burning. The ground taken away from me was broken up and sown down in grass arid clover. The four taken away from me would have costed me at the rate of £25 per acre. Fencing is worth at the least 30s per chain. On the 21st July, I sent in an application for compensation to the Council ; I subsequently suggested a settlement by arbitration ; I never authorised any construction of road over my land ; I did not get any notice of the intention of the Council. At the time the survey of the road I asked Mr Gardner if the Council were prepared to compensate me. He said it depended on my title. Cross-examined by Mr Lynch : The land in question was first taken up by Ronald M'Donald. Afterwards it became the property of myself and Kane, nnd is now my own solely ; I have resided; on the land for nine years. A common track has run across the land since I have been in Crushington. About the year 1876 a track was laid Dut by Mr Carreras for the Road Board, and cleared for about 8 feet in width, and traffic has existed thereon portions of that track comprise the present road. Some of the ground was very heavily timbered, but I could not Efivo the exact quantity. There was more scrub than heavy timber on the Four acre 3 ; I paid £71 10s for 31 acres when I purchased it in July, 1878, but [ considered it worth £300 at the time. Some of the land is better, and some worse at places, and portions of it is boulders and shingle. The position of he land near a good market enhances :he value. At the time of the survey of ;he road I had nothing growing there, jut had some within half a chain of it. \t the time of the survey I might have 3ointed out to Mr Gardner the track of I feet laid out by Mr Carreras ; I conracted for keeping the track in repair for .2 months. This track was only a pack irack at the time, and extends along tl c >resent road ; I did not then interfere nth tbe Council maintaining the track. i.s soon as the dray road was finished I ent in my claim, not before ; I did not ender for the maintaining of tho pre» ent ro»d ;

John Williams was called and proved that be lived at Crusbington 14 years ago and Jiad inspected plaintiff's land about a month ago, and found it well improved. The ground would cost 10s to fell the timber, 10a to grub and 10s to burn off per acre ; tbe ground taken for the road is worth £30 an acre ; he bad received £25 an acre from the Council for ground taken ; the value of three-rail fencing is 35s per chain ; a road could have been made round tbe sideling at heavy cost. Cross-examine.! by Mr Lynch : The land for which I got £25 per acre is no better than plaintiffs; cannot say what state tbe land wa» in when Lynch took it up ; a fence is required to keep cattle from trespassing. John Gilmer gave corroborative evidence. Niel M'Connoghy : lam a farmer and live about a mile and a-balf above plain* tiff; have known the ground in question for eight or nine years; it was bosh land and wonld cost 303 per chain to clear, the gronnd is patchy, some fair and some no -good at all ; tW land through gbbd, oui l&e otheif half is not math account, being stoney : passable crops would prow on the land. Cross»examined ; Have been in tbe neighborhood nine or ten years; hove fifty ecres of land above Lynch, and wonld not take £100 for it. John HaroW, County Clerk, tendered certain formal proofs. William Gardner: I was County En« gineer in April last and know tbe site of the road in question both before and after the construction ; did not survey it but was instructed to prepare specifications for a road of which tbe piece in question forms portion ; Lynch told me that a road existed through his land ; I did not mark out any lne of road ; in tlie sppcifications I merely mentioned that stones merely required to be thrown away aiong* the fence; no cutting or formation was required; that part of the work would have cost more than £4 had it been heavy timber; the plaintiff did not say anything about compensa* tion ; be had a maintenance contract over the same emnnd the year treyious ; James Moor: Was partners with King in the contract for the *oad ; know tbe ground of plaintiff for fifteen years ; it is different now to what it was then ; I estimate the clearing of land ready for crop nf £50 an acre ; the line tbfongb plaintiff's land was picketed every 3 or 4 chains and we worked in accordance with them ; we cleared off s»ones and did some filling and cutting and cleared 10ft. | We removed timber in shout 30 chains of the ground ;do not know what the condition of the Isnd was in 1870 when tbe lease was granted. This closed the c»se for tbe plaintiff, and tbe Court adjourned for an hour.