Hawke's Bay Times. Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1870.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 16, Issue 895, 17 December 1870, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Times. Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1870.

Still no European telegrams are to hand, an 4 speculation is rife as to what can be causing their dtday. A Bleak Souther has been blowing during the gt eater part of to-day, and several showers of rain have fallen. Tenders (receivable to the 31st instant) are invited for the erection of bank premises for the Union Bank of Australia. (See advertisement.) Resident Magistrate's Court.— On Thursday, in the matter of Peacock and Co. v. Paora Torotqro of Kohupasiki, defendant made application for a re-hearing. The claim was for .£26 15s 9d on a bill or note. * The case was heard on the 7th June, 1870, and in the absence of the defendant judgment was given for the full amount claimed with costs. Execution issued a few months ago. The defendant now applied for § re-hearing on the ground pljat no summons had ever been served upon him, and that the'bailiff of the Qourt had seized his gig -he would not say why or wherefore, Mr fiOcke, at the request of the Resident Isagistraf.e, consented tp act as inteiprpjs£g. and was accordingly sworn as, gtysJVt' Paora Torgtoro, being sw/orn ?

deposed:—T am defendant in the above suit. T reside at Kohupatiki. I apply for a re-hearing of the case because my gig has been seized, and I am ignorant of the cause. T know what a summons is; it is a puhapuka telling one to attend a court. No summons was ever served upon me in this suit, and that is why I did not attend at the Resident Magistrate's Court on the 7th of last June. 1 believe I have a good ground of defence to the suit. I wish my gig, which has been seized by the bailiff, to be returned to me, in order that I may be able to return home. I will produce it before this Court whenever T shall be ordered to do so, and T will consider myself and act as custodier of it for the Court until this matter shall have been finally decided.—The Magistrate said the case had been adjudicated upon before he came to Napier. He had refused the first application for a warrant of execution, because the plaintiffs had not come and informed him of the manner and place in which they intended the seizure of the property to be made ; but he had granted the second application upon such information being given, and the same being deemed satisfactory. He had not had the slightest idea of the defendant not having been summoned in the suit; if he had, the warrant would not have been issued. Under the peculiar circumstances of the case he' would make an order for the restoration to the defendant of his gig and other property taken in execution. The defendant should, however, clearly understand that the chattels would be still regarded as in the possession of the law, and that he would be regarded as their custodier only, until his application for a re-hearing should have been heard and decided. It is not improbable but that the summons intended for the defendant had been served upon some other Maori of the same name. As the application was ex parte, and the plaintiffs had had no notice of it, he would not decide it then, but he would appoint a day for the future hearing of it, of which clue notice should be given to the plaintiffs, Messrs. Peaoock & Co. —The order for the return of the property seized to the defendant was then made, and Friday, the 23rd instant, was appointed for hearing the application for a re hearing.