RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3187, 8 May 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Wednesday, May 7. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.)

CIVIL CASES

Burke v. Smith.—Claim of L 67 10s. Mr Harris applied for an adjournment in this case, inconsequence of the evidence taken at Wellington net having arrived. It was adjourned for a week. Blueskin Road Beard v. Founess. His Worship gave judgment as follows :

I have considered the various nonsuit points raised at the hearing of this case by Mr Stout, as counsel for the defendant. It will, however, only be necessary to remark upon the first, being clearly of opinion that the point taken is fatal to the plaintiff’s case, and will preclude the possibility of the recovery of the rate. By the 37th Section of “ The Otago Road’s Ordinance 1865,” in terms of which Ordinance the rate with which the defendant is charged purports to have been made, it is provided “ that the local board shall report to the General Board what amount of money will be required to meet and supply the several purposes in view and all incidental expenses, also the yearly rate by which the same may be raised, and shall remit to the General Board a copy of the Assessment Roll. The General Board having finally decided on all objections, if any, to tin; assessment, or to the rate, shall authorise precepts to be issued for the payment of such rate by the persons named or referred to therein, or others iiable, to the person or persons thereby appointed to he collectors of the same, and at the placa or places, and within the time or times to be specified therein; and thereupon it shall be incumbent on the persons and others to pay, and on the said collector or collectors to collect and receive the moneys stated in such precept, and thereby authorised to be levied. From the terms of this section it will be seen that a precept is absolutely essential for four purposes, viz., the payment of the rate by the persons named therein, the appointment of collector, the time within which the rate is required to be paid, and lastly, the duty imposed on the collector to receive the moneys stated in such precept. From the fact of the plaintiff’s case being unsupported by a precept, I am of opinion that the rate attempted to be charged to the defenfeudant is unauthorised, and therefore cannot be recovered. —Plaintiff nonsuited.

Mr Harris gave notice of appeal. Stewart v. Reeves, Fisb, aud Greig, was a claim of LID 14s 2d, a lawyer’s bill, for services rendered in the estate of J. M ‘Cubbin. P ; aintiff stated that Messrs Fish aud Greig were willing to pay their share of the amount, but Reeves refused to pay his ; and witness refused to take that ottered by the others, as it might be looked upon as a settlement of the claim. It was on the 10th June, 1809, they called on him, and had an interview relative to the case. —H. 8. Fish stated that, being dissatisfied with M'Cuhbin’s bill of sale, the creditors deemed it advisable to see the matter gone into. Reeves, Greig, and witness called on Mr Stewart, and gave him instructions ; all taking an equal part. The claim was originally L 33, but as nothing was got out of the estate, it was reduced by plaintiff to the sum now sued for. Peeves would not say definitely whether he would pay his share, and ultimately repudiated it. He found a document some ten days ago, bearing defendant’s signature to the claim.—C. S, Reeves said he was met by Fish and Greig, and asked to go to plaintiff, and he went; Mr Fish acting as spokesman, as usual. Had he been made aware of the existence of the document he would have paid his share. Judgment was given for the amount churned, together with costs. James A. Bouih appeared in answer to a fraud summons, issued by Albert Gcddes, to show cause why he should not pay L 8 7s, judgment having been given against him in that amount on the 16th April. Defendant said he was an actor, aud one of the lessees of the Queen’s Theatre. Instead of making money during the month they had been open, they had scat cely cleared expenses; and during that time he had only received L 3. His wife was in receipt of L2 10s a week as an actress. Plaintiff was perfectly sure defendant would not pay him without an order; for had he shown the least willingness to do so, he would not have pressed the charge. An order that defendant pay 10s a week was made ; in default of auy one payment, one month’s imprisonment, with hard labor. James Flynn v. Dennis—Claim of L 7 17s 6d, balance of account for board and lodging, and money lent. Mr Wilson for defendant. Judgment was given for L2 17s 6d, each party paying half costs.