RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4270, 2 November 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, November 2. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.)

Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in the following cases ;—M. W. Hawkins v. C. McCarthy, LI, for rent; Meenan v. J. A. Smith, L2 7s, goods; same v. Alfred Forrest, L 4 13s 9d; Geddes v. Klickline, LI 12s 6d, balance of account for funeral expenses; Wallace v. Frederick Moss, 12 ss, three weeks’ board and lodging; John Russell v. James Donaldson, L 3 4s, on an LO.U.

Gott y. Howell. —In this case, heard some time ago, his Worship delivered judgment as follows “ This is an action at the instance of James Gott and Mary Gott, who sues by James Gott, her next friend, -against William Howell for LlO damages incurred through the said Mary Gott, in a public place, having been injured by the defendant’s dog. Au objection has been taken that there is no provision in the Resident Magistrate’s Court enabling an infant to sue for damages. An infant is not capable of appointing an attorney. In-England the Court has for many years authorised the application generally of the principle contained in the Statute of Westminster, 3 Ed., 1 c., 48, which gives an infant inheritor the right to sue by his next friend against his guardian who may have aliened any portion of his inheritance. In the Supreme Court of the Colony the admission of a next friend on behalf of an infant plaintiff is, however, only allowed in the manner prescribed in regulcß generates, and in the District Court a special rule in that behalf has also been made, under which the next friend must sign an undertaking to be responsible for costs. In the. Eesident Magistrate's Court no rule has been made allowing an infant to sneby next friend; and as the Court is ope of limited jurisdiction, the magistrate has no authority to exercise any power unless specially conferred either by the statute creating the Court, or by rule made under the 136 th section of the Act, whereby, in all cases not specially provided for, the Governor may frame and establish general roles and orders regulating the practice and forms of all proceedings in this Court. Seeing, then, that both the Resident Magistrate’s Act and the rules are silent on the subject, I am of opinion that I have no authority to allow the infant plaintiff, who, in this case, is not three years old, to appear by a next friend. The father also claimed a right to sue for the expenses which he had incurred in the matter. To this, it was objected that there had been no proof of the scienter on the part of the owners of the dog. It was contended that the relaxation of the legal rule, which ■ requires proof of the owner’s knowledge of the previous mischievous propensity of the dog, which is allowed by “The Injuries by Dogs Act, 1865,” is restricted to the person injured. In a previous case, Gillan v. Tilford (Ist September, 1876), I adopted this view, and I see no reason to alter my opinion. For these reasons the plaintiffs will be nonsuited, but as there was no doubt ab<»ut the' injury, and as the infant may sue iu another Court, or a rule may be made at any time to provide for an' infant plaintiff sueing in this Court by next friend for damages for personal injury received, I recommend the parties to endeavor to come to some teaaonj able settlement.” Mr F. E. Chapman gaVn I notice of appeal.

Thos. L 3 9s 7d, half costof at Forbury.—Mr Bathgate wham judgment was given, withoosts. Peter'Paxton v. Waited Millar, was an adjourned case, in width LlOwasclaimed for the illegal detention of a retriever dog. Mr Muir appeared Chapman defended. —His that Slain tiff had made out a clearjSjfe? -tod while aving no moral dog was plaint'ffs, he was net #tfErtCntecl in depriving the present possessor-of. it....The evidence was of a conflicting nature, and that of the witness Ffaimnnnd was not worthy of the credence of an ordinary witness. Plaintiff was nonsuited, with costs.