RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Kumara Times, Issue 1988, 12 January 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

•♦ : Friday, January 12. [Before J. Giles, Esq., KM.] DAVID KELLY V. ROBERT MILLSON. This was an action to recover clamages for the loss of a house and property in Main street, Kumara, caused, as it was alleged, by defendant, on the 23rd day of November, 1882, lighting or causiug to be lit a fire on the defendant's property at Kamara, which spread to and destroyed the house and effects of the plaintiff at Kumara aforesaid, situate in tho Main road, and on section "No. 842. And the plaintiff claimed damages £6O. Mr W. Perkins appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr A. R. Guinness for the defendant.

Mr Perkins opened the case by stating that' the plaintiff, David Ivelly, although an inmate of a lunatic asylum, was sufficiently sane to carry on his business, and he (Mr Perkins) had received written instructions from plaintiff, by his wife (Mrs Kelly, who was present) to bring this action for damages. He should adduce evidence to show that defendant by his own admission, had, on the 23rd November last, set fire to some scrub 150 to 200 yards from plaiutiff's house; that the wind, following the course of a tramway through some open bush towards plaintiff's house, had carried sparks on to the wooden roof of that house, and it was burned, together with some valuable contents of said house. Sparks from the bush fire had extended even across the road from plaintiff's house ; the town itself had been in danger, the smoke extending even to Dillman's Town, he was told, and the Fire Brigade turned out. The amount of damages claimed was £GO ; the value of things destroyed was £69, aud putting the value of the cottage at £3O, made a total loss of £99. The fire was lit by the defendant at a distauce of about 150 to 200 yards away ; it assumed large proportions, and sparks were carried from trees 10ft. to 50ft. high in the direction of the plaintiff's house, setting fire to and destroying it and the property therein. He maintained that by "The Lunatics Act, 1882," summary proceedings may be t*ken for damages or injury to the property of lunatics. The first witness he would call upon would bo Mrs Kelly, the wife of the plaintiff. Mr Guinness, for the defendant, said it might be as well, before taking evidence, for the Court to consider the locus standi of the plaintiff in the case. By section 269 of " The Lunatics Act, 1852," the mere fact of plaintiff being a lunatic precluded him from recovering any damages. By the section referred to the Public Trustee was the proper person to recover damages, and that by summary proceeding or complaint before a Judge of the Supreme Court. He contended that this Court had no power to declare damages. After further argument, his Worship said he would take time to look through (

the Acts; and, at 10.42 a.m., adjourned the Court for half-anhour.

On resuming, at 11.12 a.m., His Worship said that he had looking carefully through the Lunatics Act, and found that it did provide that tne Public Trustee should have the management of the estates of lunatics. He quoted several other clauses of the Act bearing on the subject, and said that iu the present case the lunatic was really in the hands of the Public Trustee. He considered the plaintiff had no locus standi. Summons dismissed, by reason of the incapacity of the plaintiff, as a lunatic, to sue.