RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2561, 3 May 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tjiis Day. (Before A. 0. Strode, Esq., R. V.) Civil Casks. EiHson, collector of the Roslyn Road Board v. Lees. LI 13s 9d, for road rates. Mr Catomore for the defendant. The case was dismissed, on the ground that the defendant was not the person to he sued. Costs to he paid hy the plaintif. Ellison v. D. Miller.—A claim for 18s, for highway rates in the Roslyn distant. Mr Catomore for the defendant. Tor the defence, Mr Catomore asked if the property was not vested in trustees for the henelit of Mrs Miller, and was answered it was, hut that the defendant was the occupier. The required notices were properly advertised. It was objected that the notice of intention to levy a rate was not served in snlfi ;Lnt time to enable the plaintilf to appeal; as although it was dated July 29th, it was not served until August the 12th, the day on which appeals were decided. The Act required objections to be made fourteen days after the date of the notice. It was also objected that the terms of the advertisement notifying the issue of the precept were not correct. Macklin, clerk ef the Roslyn Road Board, said that the defendant appealed against the assessment, on the grounds that the rate was too high, and that he was not the owner of the property. In reply to

questions, it was said that the appeal day was postponed, to give opportunity for fourteen days notice before appeal. He did not consider t lie description of the property sufficient, as the section ami block were not specified. The notice in the Gazette, requiring them to he stated, was published subsequent to those notices being issued. His Worship considered the whole business of the lload Board to have been conducted in a loose manner, and that the whole thing was a bungle, the wrong person having been sued. The plaintiff was nonsuited. Sampson v. Andrew. —1,3 6s 10.1. Mr Harris applied for a postponement of the case, on the ground that the summons was served too late to give notice of a set-off to a much larger amount than the sum claimed. It was agreed that the case should be lira: d this day week. Powell v. M‘Guinness. —L 3, balance of account. The plaintiff stated that, while in Hokitika, h‘ lent defendant's wife L 5, t) finish building a cottage at Hokitika, on account of which he received groceries and a pair of b ota, valued at L2. The defen lant had admitted the debt. For the defence it was stated that the woman who borrowed the money and lived with him was not his wife. Sarah Steele was called, who said she passed at Hokitika as defendant's wife and bos rowed the money for him, and at his instance. She lived with him as his wife for over six years. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount, with costs.