RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2575, 19 May 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., 11. VI.) Civil Carls. Smith v. Oliver and Proudfoot, L 5 ss. Mr Haggitt for the defence. The defendants paid 7s into Court. This was a claim for wages alleged to be due by the defendants. For the defence, it was stated that all the items claimed were paid. Judgment for the plaintiff, 10s Gd, including the 7s paid iuto Court. Mefnan v. Smith, L2 14s 8d. —MrM'Keay for the plaintiff. Mrs Smith appeared as agent for her husband. Judgment for the plaintiff, L2 9s lid and costs. Thomson v. Anderson, 1.9 14s 3d.—Mr J. Smith, instructed by the German Consul, for the plaintiff. The facts as stated by Mr Smith were that the plaintiff' is a seaman and arrived in the Agnes Muir. That bring ill on his arrival, for the convenience of the ship he was removed to the hospital. On the 28th April, the captain being nearly ready for sea, went to the shipping officers at the Custom Douse, and without the consent of plaintiff had his name written off the ship’s books, deducting at the same time a certain sum for slops, which were admitted correct, and also L 5 for hospital expenses. The Plaintiff objected to the deduction of that amount on the plea that under the Mercantile Shipping Act, the captain was liable to pay for medical attendance and medicines. Deducting the amounts stated the Plaintiff was left in Dunedin with L 3 2s lOd. As the vessel did not sail until the 15th of May, the Plaintiff claimed the balance of wages beween 18th April and that date, on the ground that he had not been legally discharged. Mr. E. B. Cargill, as agent for the owners of the Agnes Muir, stated that the Captain had only done what he conceived to be his duty, and really felt for the pontion of the plaintiff. Mr, Hart, acting shipping master at the Custom House, stated that the ‘discharge of the seaman was formally made in the customary manner, and that deductions from the wages having been claimed on examination of them, and finding the amount correct, he was bound to allow them. Judgment was reserved. Johnson v. J. Curie. —A claim for wages, L2 9s 3d. Judgment by default for the plaintiff, for the amount. Sparks v. Keame.—Ls Os Gd. Jndgmmt by default for the amount with costs.

(Before I. N. Watt, Esq., and the Hon. Captain Fraser, J.P.)

Wright and Taine v. Joslyn.—L2o. Mr Haggitt for the plaintiff The plaintiffs are trustees in the estate of Scott and Joslyn, and sought to recover the value of a gold watch alledg.d to be unlawfully detained by the defendant. Mr Howorlh for the defendant, contended that the Court had no jurisdiction, ami that the only Court t';at was competent to deal with the matter was the Court of Bankruptcy. Mr Haggitt contended that it was an action to recover part of the trust property, the Court was competent to deal with the question. His Worship decided that it was a question for the Court of Bankruptcy to deal with. Regina on the prosecution of Matthew Holmes v, Caldwell and Cairns.—This was a prosecution against the defendants for committing an indictable dffence in the course of constructing the road now in progress across Anderson’s Bay, whereby it was alleged that the navigation of the Bay was obstructed. Mr Macassey for the prosecution ; Mr Haggitt appeared for the defence Mr Macassey considered that as the, Crown Prosecutor might have to proceed in the Supreme Court, it was at least unseemly for him to appear for the defence as Provincial Salicitor. Mr Haggitt replied that he had received permission from the Attorney - General to act. The evidence given was as follorvs John Outvam, overseer of prison labor in Danedin Goal, received instructions from the defendant Caldwell to take twenty-eight men to Anderson’s Bay ou Monday. He did a portion of work as directed in forming a road across Anderson’s Bay. The work had been in progress three weeks or a month. It was between high and low water mark, and above and below it, and formed by tipping soil into the Ray. The water would would be about seven feet deep at high water. He had formed an embankment at a point where a boat could sail at high water He bad not received the plans, butth; Inspector of Works told him there were to be two bridges constructed on the line of the road which was to cross the Bay. Robert Cox, brickmaker. Anderson’s Bay, had lived there seven years. Had been in the habit of sending bricks by basvta down the river. No boats had crossed the water where the present portion of the embankment was. Many boats visited the Bay. In answer to Mr Haggitt : Sometimes the Bay run dry at low water. Whale food at certain seasons went into the Bay, and was a nuisance to the neighborhood. The boats that visited the Bay were flat-bottomed and sailing boats. They generally passed out i-rar the middle of the river. J. H. Every, of Anderson.- Bay, confirmed the evidence of the last witness,

After some evidence, which we are prevented from giving in this issue, had been taken, Mr. Haggitb said the Provincial Government were taking the opinions of several engineers, and asked for an adjournment for a week. Mr. Macassey would consent on conditirn that no further action should be taken in prosecuting the works. Mr. Haggitt was not prepared to concede the point, and proposed to show that great benelit would accrue to a large number of settlers, .and the only injury wmld be obstructing the view of a single person. Mr Macassey said nothing but respect to the Superintendent prevented his being brought into Court, and this course would be taken were the work continued. He conceived he would sanction any agreement entered into by Mrs. Cald* el'.

The case was adjourned to Tuesday. JUDGMENT. His Worship gave judgment this morning in the case Irving v. Thomson : This information is laid under the 9th of certain regulations made by the Waste Land Board of Otago, under the authority of the 6th rection of the Otago Waste Land Act, 1866, Amendment Act, 1860, against the defendant for harassing certain cattle depasturing in a certain district known as the Traqaair Hundred, and the evidence shews that the several acts which are purported to constitute the offence were committed upon a certain portion of the said district, being part of Run 48, now or lately in the occupation of Mr Fulton, of whom the defendant is the servant, and also that the defendant w’as acting under the instructions of his employer ; and these facts are not disputed. But it is contended for the defence that the proclamation of the Traquair Hundred is inoperative, at least so far as the rights of Mr t 1 niton to the beneficial occupation of the lands held under his lease are concerned, inasmuch as those rights have not been determined in the manner prescribed by the 82nd section of the Otago Waste Lands Act, 1866, which provides that as to so much of any such laiuis as shall be included in any Hundred to be thereafter proclaimed, the lease “shall cease and determine from and after a day to be named in the proclamation by which such Hundred shall be constituted.” And in this case no such day is named in the proclamation contributing or purporting to constitute the Hundred in question. If the proclamation be nugatory became thus defective, no such offence as that charged in (he information has been committed, because the regu'ations, with the breach of which the defendant is charged, would nob in such a case apply. But if the proclamation be good, so far as it goes, then it would appear to clothe certain others with the rights hitherto enjoyed, and belonging to Mr Fulton, rights which have never yet ceased, or been determined in the manner required by law. Tims two parties would seem to have each the exclusive right to the same thing. In this dilemma lam compelled to decide in favor of the right which first accrued, that of Mr Fulton, and to diurmag the charge, for I do not think Mr Fulton can be dispossessed under the Act, save by a literal complhnce with its provisions. With respect to costs, as this decision is given upon what I believe to be the law, of the case, and not upon the merits, and as the employer of the defendant is taking advantage »l an oversight, the costs will not follow the judgment, but each party will bear his own.