RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3214, 9 June 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, June 9. (Before I. N, Watt, Esq., R,M.)

The Magistrate said that before proceeding with the business, he desired to read a communication received from the Minister of Justice, relative to a case heard some time ago in that Court at the instance of Mr H. S. Fish against Mr C. S. Reeves. The communication was accompanied by a copy of the letter forwarded by Mr Fish to the Minister of Justice, in which he complained that "f ire judgment given in the case amounted to a complete failure of justice. The letter further set forth the writer’s reasons for arriving at that conclusion. His Worship continued to say that he would not then make any comment upon the complaint. Mr Harris asked whether his worship objected to the complaint as made being published.

His Worship replied that he would first ask the consent of the Government before publishing the complaint. y Mr Harris expressed his own regret, and the reg et, he was sure, of the other members of the bar, that anyone holding the position of J.P. as M r Fish did, should make such a charge against another Magistrate, without at the same time informing that he did so with the full concurrence of the counsel by whom he was represented. He was sure he spoke the general opinion entertained by the Bar that his worship had invariably given his judgments inaccordapce with the evidence adduced, and that these decisions had invariably been characterised bystrict impartiality. Elliot v. M‘Naughton.r—Claim for LIG. being one month’s wages due as cook, and one month’s wages in lieu of a month’s notice. Mr Stewart for plaintiff ; Captain Thomson being allowed to appear for defendant. Plaintiff was employed as cook on the harbor-dredge. On one or two occasions he neglected duty, and, on being remonstrated with, he made an insolent reply. Defendant told him that if he was not more attentive to bis work another man would be got. To this plaintiff replied, “You get him then.” The. Court found that the neglect of duty was not of such a serious nature as to justify immediate dismissal, and gave judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed (less L 8 paid into Court), together with costa. Goldsmith v. Crowder.—Claim for L 8 5s 2d, for a quantity of bones, horns, &o. Mr H\ Cook for plaintiff, and Mr Stout for defendant. The defence was that the purchase was made by a person named Boxwell, and that he (Boxwell) had been paid by defendant. Boxwell gave evidence, in which he stated that he was a dealer in bones, &c. He made purchases on behalf of defendant. He bought them at whatever he could get them for, and sold them to defendant at an uniform rate of 8s per hundredweight. The Court found that the purchase Had not been made by defendant, and gave judgment accordingly with costs. Judgment by default was given in the following cases :—New Zealand Distillery Company v. Gardner, Ll3 15s; sams v. M‘Kay, L 25 Ss lOd.

Turnbull v. Phillips.—This was a claim for damages arising from the short delivery and damaged condition of a consignment of goods received per the ship Euterpe.;—Mr Mansford, for the defendant, objected: that the summons had not been served forty-eight hours before the day of hearing, in terms of the Resident Magistrates’ Court Act.—lt appeared from the arguments of counsel that the summons was served on the afternoon of Friday. At that time the vessel was ready to sail, and a letter was given by the agents of the vessel, Messrs Geo. G. Russell and Co,, to satisfy any judgment that might be pronounced. On that guarantee being granted, the ship of which defendant was commander was allowed to leave. —Mr Mansford, for defendant, argued that Sunday was excepted from the forty-eight hours’ citation as provided for by the Act.—Mr Harris characterised the defence as one of the meanest that could possibly have beeu set up. He was strongly inclined to believe that it had not been sanctioned by Messrs Geo. G. Russell aud Co. —His Worship said that, under these circumstances, he would require Mr Mansford to produce his authority for appearing in the case. —Mr Mansford said that the demand by the Magistrate was a most extraordinary one. He (Mr Mansford) was a solicitor of the Supreme Court, and he was amenable in his professional dealings to that Court, but the Magistrate could not insist upon a course so extraordinary.— Eventually Mr G. G. Russell appeared im Court, and, in reply to Mr Harris; said that his firm concurred in the defence as stated.—Mr Harris : Then I could not have believed it. It is the meanest defence I ever heard.—On being further argued, it was decided that the case should be heard, and decision on the point raised was reserved.