DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1796, 22 November 1879, Page 4

DISTRICT COURT.

Thursday, November 20. [Before his Honor Judge Ward.) The usual monthly sitting of the District Court was held yesterday, at 11 a.m, HORTEN V ATT WOOD. In this case judgment was entered up for £IOO claimed and costs of hearing, &c., to be reduced to the latter if the filly in dispute was returned. As this had been done, the yordiefc was for costs. OKAIK’S BAT ROAD BOARD V KBNNT. In this case the Road Board of the Okain’s Bay district sued to recover £145 11s 6i from defendant, who was a contractor for works under them, tko amount having been overpaid in error. After hearing the evidence of Mr H. 11. Fenton, an engineer, His Honor gavo judgment for plaintiffs for £143 17s and costa. For plaintiffs, Mr AVynn Williams. For defendant, Mr Izard. CAMERON, APPELLANT, V MCILSAITIS, RESPONDENT. This was a case of appeal against a conviction for dog stealing. The appellant had been convicted on the information of tho respondent in the 'Court below and fined £5 ss. Notice of appeal had been given at the close of the case, which now came for hearing. Mr G. Harper for the appellant. Mr Joynt, with him Mr Thomas, for the respondent. Mr Harper stated the facts of tho case, and called the appellant to .prove the personal service of notices of appeal. Mr Harper then called -upon the clerk of the Court to read the conviction. Mr Colthart, clerk to tho'Oourt below, produced tho record book. Mr Joynt contended that the appeal could not be proceeded with. There was no conviction before the Court, which should be formally drawn up and signed by the magistrates convicting in tho case. Mr Harper submitted that having given notice to the magistrates to produce the conviction, ho had done all that was necessary. His Honor read the section of tho appeals from Justices of the Teace Act to show that it was necessary that the formal conviction should be sent to the Supreme Court. Mr Joynt raised the point as to whether his Honor could hear the appeal at all. He was, as he believed, a Justice of the Peace, and the Act said that where a District Court Judge was a Resident Magistrate or Justice of the Peace, an appeal could only be heard by the Supreme Court. His Honor ruled against Mr’Joynt, Tho section quoted clearly meant that where a District Court Judge, as Resident Magistrate or Justice of the Peace, had heard and determined a case, the appeal against it could not he heard by him, but must go to the Supreme Court. Mr Joynt then raised the point whether the case could go on in the absence of the formal conviction. His learned friend came there to appeal against a conviction, but he submitted that unless the conviction were proved to he in existence, he ■ had no locus standi. His Honor said that it would be most unjust if Mr Harper’s client wero to be deprived of his right of appeal through no fault of his own, but because the Justices had not complied with the Act and sent in a formal record of the conviction. After taking the evidence of Mr Parker, one of the County Justices, as to the conviction not being signed by them, The case stood over till next day, to enable Mr Parker and the second Justice convicting in the case to sign the formal record of conviction. Mr Harper intimating that it was probable the appeal might be abandoned, and a civil action instituted for the recovery of the dog. _____