PARSLOE V. WORSP.

Evening Star, Issue 4094, 10 April 1876, Page 2

PARSLOE V. WORSP.

To the Editor. Sir,—l was in court daring the delivery of the judgment in the case of Paraloe v. Worsp, and I must say I think your leader of Bth inst. on the subject inaccurate both in its statement of facts and in its conclusion. So far from the application for leave to appeal being based on “no pretext that the judgment was unjust or not according to law,” it was distinctly on the ground that a very important legal point—whether the defendant was personally liable to be sued—was involved in the decision that leave to appeal was asked for. That this point is not a “legalquibble,” but an important element in the case, is shown by the fact of its being elaborately argued by Mr Bathgate in his judgment. Indeed, during .the subsequent discussion he did not affect to treat the oblection as a slight or unimportant one, but based his refusal on the ground that in his opinion the plaintiff had been hardly treated. Now, putting aside the consideration that the legal question was not the hardship or otherwise of the case, but who was legally responsible for the alleged oppression, the obvious intention of the Legislature in the Resident Magistrate’s Court Act is, I submit, While leaving the decision of questions of tact to the Magistrate, to rive a litigant the right to have the legal bearing of these foots, if doubtful, decided by a higher tribunal. In actions involving a larger sum than L2Q thfo appeal is a matter <3 right ;, ¥1 Wrt sum and over L 5 it requires the cousoui Qf the Magistrate. Rutitjisobri-

ously the spirit of the Act that this disoreSisJs V^*Sar f iHI 11 pwvpnt vexatious and fnvolng. „ beheves the legal U honestly.dpen to arghment. v io refn Your-statement thai Idr Stddtaßkwi tp appeal on the of money involved, is calculate to w>i»l oa fl tfe.omyjprged that‘as theljegielaturo had ( made the criterion as "‘to when ah appeal Should be given as of right, the fact although the amount sued for in thi« action was only Ll2, yet the judgment really involved, by agreement, a sum Of LB4 was an additional reason why the appeal should b© allowed. I write in no hostility to Mr Bathgate, who, I am sure, came to the decision he did conscientiously and advisedly, hut because with every respect I think that decision and yohr comments npotfit based on a wrong conception of the intention Of the Resident Magistrate's Court Act.—l am, ftp., Dnnedin, April 10. Souciiok^