MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2041, 8 September 1880, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Tuesday, Sbptbmbbb 7. [Before G. L. Hellish, Esq., R.M.] Civil Cases. —City Council v Wright, £1 6s, due for scavenging rate. Defendant said he was rated for three properties. Ho received an application from the collector for an account rendered previously, and the current quarter’s rate, which he paid. He then received the present summons for arrears previous to, but not brought forward in, the account he had paid. No previous application had been made for the amount said to be due, and he thought there were no arrears. He was summonsed not only for his own rates but also for those duo by one of his tenants. His tenant had left, but hia address had been given to tho collector, who know very well where to find him. Ah Ching, the tenant referred to, was called, and deposed to having paid all rates demanded of him by the collector. The collector, who appeared for the Council, said he could prove the service of the account that had been denied by defendant, and applied for an adjournment. His Worship said certainly not. There was a constant wrangle over this rate. The accounts issued contained no particulars of the properties they were supposed to refer to, and they were served and sued on in a most extraordinarily irregular manner, and when cases were brought into court, if they were disputed adjournments were asked for to allow them to be properly got up. The evidence before him showed that no application had been made to defendant tor part of the amount sued for and that the rest had been paid by his tenant. Judgment would be for defendant with costs and expenses of one witness. Rogers v Harris, £24, for repairs done to a house ; Mr Stringer for plaintiff, Mr Thomas for defendant. The evidence showed that the contract had not been completed in a workmanlike manner, and plaintiff was nonsuited, and ordered to pay costs, solicitor’s foes, and the expenses of two witnesses. Kent v Allen ; Mr Stringer for defendant ; £lO 16i 7d, balance due for wages as bailiff’s man. It was proved that plaintiff had really been overpaid. Judgment for defendant with costs. Trustee in the estate of Theresa Qualmer v Corsor, £2O. In April, 1879, one Qualmer settled by deed certain property on his wife, which was vested in a trustee. Nine months afterwards Qualmer became bankrupt. Mrs Qualmer later still sold to defendant, with the consent of her trustee, a drawing room suite of furniture, being part of the property settled on her by her husband. By some means the trustee in the bankruptcy of of the husband induced defendant to pay to him the price for which the furniture was sold, £2O, and Oorser refusing to pay Mrs Qualmer, tho present action was brought to compel him to complete his bargain. Defendant stated that the trustee in bankruptcy had given him notice, under threat of legal proceedings, to pay the amount to him, which had been done. F. Trent, the trustee in the bankruptcy of tho husband, said there had been an action brought in the Supreme Court to test tho validity of the deed, but it was withdrawn. Another action was to be brought in the District Court, but no writ had actually been served in the matter. Mr Holmes, who appeared for plaintiff, said that until the deed was pronounced invalid Mr Trent could not interfere. His Worship said ho thought so too, but as the deed appeared to be rather a shady transaction ho would now give the trustee an opportunity of testing its value. Judgment must go for the plaintiff, but the money would be retained in Court for twentyone days, to be then paid to plaintiff if no injunction to tho contrary has not before that time been obtained from tho higher Court; defendant to pay costs and solicitor’s fee. Ward v Rowe, £lO 19s, for purchase of the interest in a lease of a house; Mr Stringer for plaintiff, Mr Joyce for defendant. Plaintiff disposed of his interest in the property to defendant, who paid a part of the purchase money, took possession, and now refused to pay tho balance. Mr Joyce claimed that as no written agreement had been made the transaction came under the Statute of Frauds, and claimed a nonsuit. Mr Stringer quoted authorities to show that the fact of possession being taken by defendant exempted the matter from the operation of that statute. The Bench agreed with him, and gave judgment for the amount claimed, to be paid in one month, and costs. Judgments went for plaintiffs by default with oasts in McOlenahan v Beeson, £7 13s ; Berry v Price, £5 17s ; Dingle v Eagle, Iss 8d ; Main v Fry, 8s ; and Smith v Howe, £2 7s. In Hobday v Mrs Waring, alias Long, alias Brown, &0., £B, for goods supplied, plaintiff was nonsuited. City Council v Church Property Trustees was deferred till 10 a.m. Wednesday (this day), Berry v Hook till the 14th, and Dingle v Thomas till the 28th inst.

Wednesday, Septembeb 8, [Before G. L. Hellish, Esq., R.M.] Civil Oases. City Council v Church Property Trustees, £5 17s, for scavenging. This case was heard at a special sitting of the Court at ten o’clock this morning. Mr Garrick appeared for the plaintiffs ; Mr Harper for the defendants. Defendants being owners of a large number of small town properties in Christchurch, many of their tenants have from time to time made default in their payments to the City Council of the charges made by that body for removing night soil. The Council, in pursuance of the provisions of a by-law made in that behalf, which enables them in such cases to come on the landlord, now sue the defendants as being liable for the amounts so still duo. Mr Garrick said that unless his learned friend absolutely required it he had no intention of going into the merits of this particular case. Ho understood that it was to be strictly a test case, which, whatever its present issue, would be carried into the Supreme Court for settlement. He was not aware what objections would now be raised, but it would be in the recollection of the Court that in eleven different cases which he had conducted, of the same kind, Mr McOonncl, who defended them, had, it seemed to him, raised every possible objection without success, and, although leave of appeal had been given, he had not done so. Mr Mellish said he remembered the oases very well, and thinking at the time that there was a very good reason for going to the Supreme Court, was rather surprised that the appeal had not been made. Mr Harper said what he intended to contend was that, in the premises, the City Council had no power to make the by-law under which they sought to recover. In doing so they had usurped the functions of the Board of Health. And even if the by-law was valid it was not sufficient and bad. The work charged for was done for the benefit of the tenant, and it was absurd to charge it to the landlord. If the landlord could be charged for one closet pan, there was no reason to prevent him being made to bear the cost of any number of pans his tenant chose to scatter over the house. Mr Garrick said he thought these points had been raised by Mr McConnel. Mr Mellish thought the liability of the landlord had not been put as Mr Harper now put it. Mr Garrick said, in that case, as the evidence he had to offer was precisely the same as that given in the previous cases, and as it was known to his Worship and his learned friend, there was no use in travelling over the old ground, and he was prepared to accept judgment with the view of removing the case into the higher Court. Mr Harper said he would agree to that, if it was perfectly understood that the judgment was merely formal. If it went forward without explanation to the public that judgment hud been given against them, defendants would have all their tenants at once refusing to pay these charges. Mr Mellish said, of course until the by-law had been pronounced bad, the collections of the charges by the City Council under it would be supported by the Court. Judgment for the plaintiffs with costs. Leave to appeal was given, the matter ?to be argued at the next sittings of the Supreme Court in banco.