RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Inangahua Times, Volume X, Issue 1516, 25 March 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

0 (Before F. Bird, Esq , R.M.) Friday, March 20th 1885. -♦- i IV THE MATTER Of THK CoCKTT EIRCTIO-. PKTfTION AOAINBT THE RETURN I or Patrick Brbnnan. 1 The adjourned hearing was called ! on. , Mr Guinness said it was not in ten(led to call any of the celebrated ten Sltverton witnesses, bnt he wished to j put a surveyor into the '»ox regarding the question of boundaries. ' M» Jones strongly objected to the < other Bid# being allowed: to call any \

mtch evidence. The understanding at 1 the last sitting was that the r#»spon- « dents wpre limited to the ten witnesses i who conid not be served with warrantf , < when they were wanted bnt some oa whom were now in R«-ef ton. The. Court expressly limited tin* respondent* to , j the ten witnesses. He took down the words of the Bench ©u that occasion and it was expressly mentioned that no other than the ten witnesses or any of them should be called. Both Mr Guinness and Mr Lynch denied that there was any snch reser vation. • Mr Meftteath and Mr Nw-th corroborated the assertion of Mr Jones. His Worship said whatever his words wpre on the occasion, he did not intend f limit the other side as stated. Mr Jones Raid the B^nch staged that, the adjournment wonld not l»e granted to enable the respondents to work npa defence. Mr Lynch denied that, the Csnrt had expressed any such intention. His Worship said he was not disposed to exclude any evidence which tended to throw light opon the case. Mr Jon«»s said he certainly nnderttood the Conrt to say that nnly the ten witnefMeft alMHtld he called. *■ Besides it was unfair to the petitioners to allow evidence to ne called now which could have been called at the last hearing. His Worshin said it was never Sis intention to lockont anv evidence. He had not made n note of what he had said at the former hearing, but it was never hi* intention to lock ont any material evidence. The following evidence was then called:— Chsvles E. Watkins : Fam « eertifirated snrveyor and reside in Re«»fton ; have heen in practice as a snrveyor for j four or five vears ; referring to the ' «*iz<»tte notice m( the boundaries of the Ridinc* of the Inangahna County I | find it is imwvssiUe to define the ' boundaries of the Bikings on the Connty map produced ; cannot sav 1 who prepared the County map ; it is not signec l>v the draughtsman ; it is usual to attach a signature to all Government mam ; the G*»B*tte notice sne»k« of ° Mount Victoria " as a 1 starting point for the Mnndarv line* whereas there Is no Mount Victoria shown oin 'he Connty map; the Chz^tte. notice carries the line, to a rwvnt on t.he nonndary of the Hampdpn "iding and then jnmns half across the Conutv : assuming that Terry's Creek is the Wlwan and the Left-hand Branch the Whatnhi, and following the highest range as the watershed He tween the two. the Imnndary line would run out. at Ttnlinn Gully; according to the Gazette description it is impossible ' to define the boundary of the "Reefton I Riding ; " S<mth of t,h'e Grey County " j means anything ; If the Inangahua j County wns a gentleman's estate it wonld he imnossiMe to survey it from the description given in the Gm^tte I notice pMiMbonndaries traced on tb# I lithographed map produced are not i given in accordance, with the Garotte notice ; it appears us if th* red line on ! tV lithographed map and purporting | to he the boundaries of the different ; Ridings, was drawn at random ; the | lithographed map is signed by the ! Snrveyor General ; it is an unfinished pla.n and the ranges have probably heen sketched in at random. By Mr Jones : I say it is impossible to define the. boundary of the Boatman's Riding ; I drew a line on the map which showed Capleston to be on the south side of the Reefton Riding ; if the honndary line is north ef Capleston Capl»*ston must he in the Reefton Riding; have heen in the direction of Victoria range, but have ne.vi?r \*#>n j there ; if a range was shown on the map I c«nld identify it if the maf» was correct ; have never been at Mount j Victoria ; don't, know who prepared the plan produced ; would not call it a good map if it were made at the present time ; it. is not complete ; it appears to V>e a C<>nnty map ; the. lithographed ! map produced is signed i»y the Sur- ■ veyor-General ; Government often prei j.are maps at random ; I did net say the map was drawn at random ; I said the boundaries were put on at random ; cannot say what, the red lines are on the Government plan ; they might be intended for boundaries ; I did not say the pkn was unfinished ; I siid ; the boundaries were probably put on ; at random : did not say that either the map or the boundaries were unfinished ; the land marks referred to in the gazette notice are known to me i generally ; I know the north boandary line of the County ; have been across it ; it is not necessary to go o the tops of the ranges ; I could not define the Connty boundaries according tn tlie ; Gazette description 4 Headman's Creek lis on «the district map ; ray reason for j saying that the red lines on the | j Government plan are put on at random is that I could not mark off the honndaries from the Gazette notices. By ' Mr Guinness : It is from the defect of description that I am unahle to define the boundaries. Mr Lynch said this was all the evidence for the defence ; as to the ten witnesses it was not intended to call any of them. This closed the evidence for the respondents. In reference to the boundaries Mr Guinness contended that anyone conld interpret the txinudaries as well as the Surveyor General. The District Surveyor had said that unless ho assumed mch a mountain to be Mnnnt Victoria he conld say nothing. He was rather surprised at the evidence given by Mr Montgomerie in reference to the boundaries, but this was probably to be explained hy the fact that Mr Montgomerie was governed «r controlled hy the halo of officialism, and the appearance of the Surveyor General's signature npon a map had a magical effect wpba Mm. Mr Wifckin* oa th« otb*r

hand had expressed the fact when he f stated that the 1 Surveyor-General had > marked the boundaries of the Ridings t on the map at random. t Mr Jones in reply said the Conn c would certainly accept in evidence an 1 authorised map of the Qavernm nt a Department, signed hy the Surveyor- } General, iu p eferenoe to a map which t was not signed hy anyliody, and t which, for all that was suowu to the. < contra y, might have l**ei prepired hy 1 some wholly in« o nnetent p«tsin — by j gome amateur dran-rhtsman who had, 1 prepared it to order. Again thn | evidence of Mr Montyinerte who had \ lived in the Inangahna forabont ten i years, was certainly worthy of infinitely , < more weight than that of a surveyor ! < who bad only heeu a couple of years i 1 in the district and whose practice was* i limited to the survey of filming leases, j i It would require stronger evident* i than that of so<-h a wituess to dis- j credit an official map prepared hy the j ' Survey Department of the Cotony | and sigued by the Snrveyor-Genermi. j Mr Jones then addressed the Court for the petitioners : He said his duty had heen much simplified Hy the practical atandonment by the other side of objections to some sixty odd of th* names. He held that the petitioner* had proved ev«-ry material alleipttion < of tlie petition. The pei Oi all.-ged that 93 persons, non- residents of the Reefton Ridirig, had rwei-ded their votes for Patrick Brenuan at the last ! County election for th«* Riding of Reefton : of these 71 ha<! been proved Iteyond dout>t to be nnn residents of the Reefton Riding, and a scrutiny of their vores hud shown that every on#» of the 71 votos har! been recorded for the car. dictate petitioned ftp^inst, and \ n«t (fie of them had voted for Mr : Men teat! I. He next proceeded to combat the a gnu « its of the other side in reference to the form of the petition, coiitcndi'isr that as the petition was in the ex >ci wonli of th« schedule of the Regulation <f Local Elections Act, it was unassailable. Hit Worship said he certainly understood at the last hearing that the respondents intended to product I the ten witnesses, i»nd their failure, to | do to certainly left it open to be inj ferred that they had a weak case, or ; they would have called them, however, ' the whol** of the facts of the case, as fa- as th«j(had been elicited, were now before the. Court, and it would )>e necessary to go cirefnlly thron^h tho evidence before deciding. To allow i this to lie done the decision would b« 1 reserved till the next sitting of the • Cturt on the 2nd April.