RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Cromwell Argus, Volume 2, Issue 79, 16 May 1871, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Weuxk-ujay, Ma.y 3, (Before Vincent Fyke., E*q., R.M. I IMIMU.VI.NMEM' FOR (U'.DT. Mr \V. Vv. Wil sou applied tur * capias ad satisjiciendum ag.iiu.it the person ol one hunn.iri, defendant in the action Muehin.ion ami Hsrrm.n v. (Juuuani, m which judgment was given ior plaintills some considerable lime since. hn.t

learned counsel stated that as the distress w>rrant had been returned nulla bond, the oij/vu asked for to be granted as a inftte; of course.

The Resident Magistrate said thst he had refused to sign this form of warrant seat to him, because he considered it a very serious thing '•> deprive any man of his liberty, if a warrant against the person was required, it was requisite that the creditor should apply to the Court a;;*" show cause.

Mr Wilson claimed the issue of the' warrant na a matter of right; he was not au advocate of imprisonment lov debt, but as the lawnov/stood. it was necessary to enforce it. tie believed tn»s it had been customary here to demand " maintenance money" before the issue of the-warrant. There was nothing in the Act to justify this proeeeding. If it occurred hereafter in any case iu which he was concerned, he would apply at onee to the Supreme (Jourt for a mandamiu.

The Resident Magistrate concurred with Mr Wilson. The Provincial Solicitor hj. j .U been written to on the subject.

Mr Wilson said the Act permitted a prisoner for debt, after 14 days' imprisonment, without the maintenance money having been paid, 10 apply tu a Judge for release, The warrant was then granted, ordering tli3 debtor to be imprisoned for two months.

A CORPORATION DISPUTE. The Mayor and Corporation of Cromwell v. George Jenonr.—Mr Brough appeared for the complainants ; M r Wilson for the defendant. Tnis waa an action to recover £l3 95., alleged to be due by the defendant (who had held Iho olliees of Town Clerk and Bate Collector), as ,i balance of moneys which he had collected in his oilicial capacity. He had paid £2 IGs. into Court, and further pleaded iNot Indebted, ami a set-oil'of £l2 t!s. The case had been adjourned from a former Court-day. Mr Wilson said his chief answer to the demand was the set-oil'. He admitted the claim of the Corporation, but relied upon the set-off. Mr Brough argued that the set-off was of such a character that it could not be taken into consideration in the casa, It was a most impudent proceeding for a servant, when sued by his employers for moneys which he had received upon their account, to plead a setoff of wages alleged to be due as a justification of the misappropriation of the moneys of his employers. Mr Wilson replied that the Corporation had sued his client under a simple contract, there-' fore, it was competent to him to put in any setoff he chose. The Resident Magistrate said it was monstrous to set up the doctrine that a servant could pay himself wages out of moneys paid to him expressly on account of the Corporation. Mr Brough remarked that, as Town Clerk, it was Jenour's duty to pay all money he collected into the Bank. If the Corporation had done as they might have done, defendant might have been charged with misappropriating Corporation funds.

Mr Wilson objected to those aspersions being cast on his client.

The .Resident Magistrate : I look on the setoff as admitting the whole charge, and I think if the Corporation had instituted proceedings criminally, nothing could have saved defendant from penal consequences. I refuse to admit the setoff, and give judgment for £lO 12s 6d, making, with amount paid into Court, the full amount claimed by the Corporation, £1 Is professional costs, and 19s costs of Court,

On the application of Mr "Wilson, leave wa3 given to appeal to the Supreme Court on the usual terms as to sureties. Mr Pyke expressed his willingness to allow payment of the amount just adjudged to await the settlement of Mr (i. Jenour's claim against the Corporation.

Wednesday, May 10; (Befofe V. Pyke, Esq., R.M., and W. Smithatn, Esq., J.P.) DEBT. J. Towan v. A. Perr}-. —To recover £4. Settled out of Court. G. Mcl-achlan, of Rocky Point Ferry Hotel, sued E. Jones, a labouring man, for £l2 ss, due for " board and lodging." Mr Wilson appeared for the complainant. Mr Brough, for defendant, pleaded .Not Indebted. The Bench gave a verdict for the full amount with £2 costs, —to be paid in three equal instalments at one, two, and three months from date.

THE CORPORATION DISPUTE AGAIN. CI. Jenour v. the Mayor and Corporation of Cromwell—This case arose out of that reported above. Claim, £l2 (is, salary as Town Clerk. Mr Wilson for complainant, ; Mr ISrough for 1 the Corporation. Defendants had paid £lO 19s into Court, which amount complainant was advised to accept. Defendants to pay all costs.

A WORKMAN S RIGHTS. Fleming v. Jenour (as Legal Manager 1 of the Royal Standard tjuartz Crushing Co.). —Claim, £lO 14s, for services hs second engineer, on tho works of the above-named Company, Mr Wilson appeared for the complainant, who swore that he had beeit engaged by defendant, had been paid moneys by him on account of wages, and told to come in and get the balance due to him ; he also svvoi'O to the number of hours which lie hi! worked;

The defence was that complainant and others had been discharged from the service of the Co. before the alleged cause of action arose ; bnt if he had a claim against any one, it. was against a Mr Ah-es.

The lieiideiit Magistrate said the defence was invalid. This was a Company incorporated under a certain Act, and in order to secure to the Coinpiny limited liability, all its acta must be mads public. It would never do to allow contracts with working men to be annulled because a Company desired to shift ite corporate responsibility on to the shoulders of a, privatfl individual. H* gave judgment m tho full duncm*, with