MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1819, 19 April 1888, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBOKTON— THURSDAY.

(Before Captain Wray, R.M.)

DRUNKENNESS. A first offender who did not appear waa fined 10s, ' A NUISANCE. Samuel Timnao, waa charged on the Information of W. B, Oompton, the : Inspector wi!h allowing offensive matter to fl >w into the aide channel. The offence wa3 admitted aud aa the case waß the first of he kind that had been before the Court, the I jepbct )x did not ptesa for a heavy panaliy. A fine of la and coats was infl oted. CIVIL CASES, Zmder vS. Compton claim— £l 4s 6d. Judgment by default for the amount claimed and coats, ' . . Baylia v Toomey o'aim— sa lid. Mr Gutbbertaon for plaintiff. Judgment by default for the a nip ant olaimed and oosts. J. Orr and Oo v Goldsmith, judgment aummona £6 la Bi— order made that amount be pdd withla a week, In default 14 days impihonment. W. B. Ojmpton v J. Ward, Chairman of the Cemetery Board, olatm £25« Mtf White for pontiff, Me Crisp for defenV danfc. The circumstances of the oaae were aomewhat peculiar. Aa detailed by Mr White they ware ai follows :— The plain* tiff some years ago acquired a plot In the old cemetary, A child of his died m 1879, and waa buried there. Since then the "old Cametery had bean oloaed. In April 1887 the plaintiff's wife died, and she on her deathbed and several times during her Illness expressed aa earneßt wish to be buried by her child. When the plaintiff went to register (he death he asked Mr Ward that hia wifd might be burled m hia plot m the old Cemetery. The defendant refused permlaeion, saying that the old Cemetery had been closed by Order-In-Counoil, and he could permit no farther burials there. At Mr Oompton'a request the undertaker wont to see Mr Ward and told him that the plaintiff waa making a perfeotly legitimate demand, us power waa conferred m the Cemetery Aot, 1882, for any parson having a plot to be burled beside a relative m an old Cemetery, notwithatanditig the Order-in-Oounoll. In consequence of the refusal, additional ex* paneas to the extent of -C 4 10a had been incurred by the plaintiff, who thought he waß alao jusiifhd m claiming damages for the pain and trouble of mind cauaed him under the circumstances. Mr White quoted the clauses of the Cametery Aot of 1882 on which he relied— -W. B. Oompton the plaintiff and J . W. Baker, gave evidenoe —Mr Orlep then led the following cvi« denoe for the defeooa. Joaeph Ward. Chairman of the Cemetery Board remembared plaintiff coming to him. The Old Comet9ry then had been closed four yews, Witnees told him that the Board had determined that plotß m the New Oeme- • tery would be allowed to holders of unoccupied plotß iv the old burial ground, This course o waa followe4 m Oompton'a case and although the latter did not aeem to very cordially fall m with the plan, still he made no opposition. The old cemetery had been closed on the recommendation of the Board of Health on the ground that to allow any more burials there would be deleterious to the public health, — la cross-examination the witness said that a Mr Bland had been buried m the old cemetery since its closing. Witness permitted the burial because law prooeodingß were threatened, but since that, the Bjard had passed a resolution to deal with Bach oases, prohibiting burials m the old cemetery and giving plots m the new oemetery to holders of unoooupied plots m the old burial ground. The witneßß admitted that he was unaware of the existence of the Aot of 1832. —Me Orlep submitted that even if an action did lie it had been wrongly brought. If aDy body was liable It was the Cenijtory Board, and not Me Wardai a private individual. —Mr White replied — The Magistrate thought there was something m the contention that the wrong person had been sued . The action ahonld have been brought against either the Board or tha trustees. At the sama time it seemad to him that there had been 'a breach of contract an 3 a. wrong had been done aad ha thought it would be a pity to) throw out the on a a on a technical point, Soma arrangement Bhould be come to,^ Me Crisp pressed his objattloh and thi Magistrate uon-nalted the plaintiff without CO3(8. \ ' • The Court then, rose,