Open Collections

Rainbow Ranche Collection

Letter from R.H. Rogers to [Frank] Hewer, March 18, 1908 Rogers, R.H. Mar 18, 1908

Item Metadata


JSON: rainbow-1.0354720.json
JSON-LD: rainbow-1.0354720-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): rainbow-1.0354720-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: rainbow-1.0354720-rdf.json
Turtle: rainbow-1.0354720-turtle.txt
N-Triples: rainbow-1.0354720-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: rainbow-1.0354720-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

 R.    H.    ROGERS,     **J
18 March,  1908.
P. A. Hewer, Esq.,
Rainbov Ranch©,
Vernon, B. c.
Dear sir,
I sued Mr. Petrle for damages for the tresspass and
for an injunction to restrain him from repeating same. Mr. Cochrane
acted for him, and paid |5. and costs into court, and pleaded tR  to
the claim for injunction. I accepted the #5. and costs in satisfaction, and the claim for injunction was dismissed. I may say I do
not think an injunction would have been granted in any case on the
facts as they stood. This is a remedy the Court is most reluctant
to give unless its necessity is clearly shown, as well as the fact
that no other available remedy will serve the plaintiff* s ptirpoee.
In this case the offence was only once committed by the Defendant,
as I understand it, and I do not thinK this would have been considered a sufficient cause for such an extreme remedy as injunction
is considered by the courts to be.
I regret I cannot find sufficient authority in support
of the opinion atesaajc given you some time ago re distress of cattle
damage feasant, to warrant you in proceeding by way of sale. The
statute defining lawful fence and the disabilities of the holder of
land not protected by such a fence, seems to have been enacted for
the special benefit of cattle men; and I regret to say it is extremely efficacious. P. A. M. - 2.
Mr. Ellison has now returned, and if you are still
desirous of proceeding against him for trespass I can now have him
served at any time.  There is a point which was not raised in the
Petrle case, but which might have been pleaded with some chance of
success had the Defendant's solicitor thought of it. The county
court has no jurisdiction where the title to land exceeding #2500.
in value is brought in question. A claim for trespass must raise
the issue of title. It might be said that this issue affects only
the right of way.and not suCfcy the whole ranche; but the Court might
not regard this a sufficient answer to the plea; and on the whole
I do not think I should care to risk another such case in the County
court. It would be practically necessary to bring it in the Supreme
court, so as to be sure of the jurisdiction.
Yours truly,


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items